Talk:Boeing Chinook (UK variants)/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ian Rose in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Lead: RAF Chinooks have been widely deployed including fighting in the Falklands War, peace-keeping commitments in the Balkans, and action in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. -- "widely deployed" reads oddly when mixed with the rest of the sentence. If you want to say what they've done as well as where they've done it, I'd make it RAF Chinooks have seen extensive service including fighting in the Falklands War, peace-keeping in the Balkans, and action in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
- Chinook HC3:
- US Army's SF Chinook -- pls spell out "SF" here or put it in parentheses after "special forces" in the previous sentence.
- The Times should be in italics.
- 'gold standard cock-up' should be in double quotes.
- Operational history:
- You mention "78 Sqn" and "27 Squadron". Squadron names should be rendered consistently, preferably in the form "No. nn Squadron"; you should also wikilink them if possible (as in Operators).
- Sqn Ldr Dick Langworthy DFC (Op Corporate/Falklands), Sqn Ldr Steve Carr DFC (Op Telic/Iraq) and Flt Lt Craig Wilson DFC (Op Herrick/Afghanistan) -- pls spell out and link Squadron Leader (first time) and Flight Lieutenent; also since the Distinguished Flying Cross is what this is about and that appears to be their sole decoration in each case, you can probably drop "DFC" after each name.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Chinook HC1: The last part of the second para and entire third para are missing citations.
- Chinook HC2:
- The RAF returned their original HC1s to Boeing for remanufacture to CH-47D standard, the first of which returned to the UK in 1993. -- not sure "remanufacture" is a good word here, "upgrade" should suffice.
- I'm guessing that "HC.2" in Three additional HC.2s is a typo and should be simply "HC2".
- Last part of second para should be cited.
- Chinook HC3: First para should finish with a citation.
- ZA718: Last part re. DFCs requires citation.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- Operational history:
- Two RAF Chinooks were lost in August 2009 due to combat with the Taliban -- yet in Notable incidents and accidents, the second August 2009 loss is not thought to have been shot down.
- This will bring the total fleet size to 70 aircraft; currently the RAF has 48 Chinooks in inventory -- 48 disagrees with Operators, which says 46. When you get that sorted, you'd best date the info as in "As at month-year, the RAF's inventory stood at..." or some such...
- Operational history:
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- I've taken on most of the problems listed, I'm having difficulty finding a reference for the HC2A refuelling abilty, it just isn't something the media have paid much attention to. Otherwise most of the recommendations have now made their way into the article, I'll try and work on that one outstanding citation problem though. Kyteto (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's that then. Found a ref for the refuelling one, and reused a ref for the other thing. That should more or less take care of it. Kyteto (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, that's good. By the way, just so you know, the entire first para of Operational History is uncited but I'm not fussed about it because it's a summary of the rest of the section and all the key points are cited further on. Last thing, is "remanufacture" really correct or is "upgrade" better? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's that then. Found a ref for the refuelling one, and reused a ref for the other thing. That should more or less take care of it. Kyteto (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I myself lean towards remanufacture when it's in regard to extensive rebuilds of aircraft. Upgradings is a process that happens quite often to an airframe in service, at least three times in the last ten years for the Chinook fleet, this level of complete disassembly and recomposition happens usually only once or twice if at all in the life of an aircraft. I think it implies greater significance in the event an gets across that it wasn't a simply process of adding something to an aircraft, but also taking away. As it so happens, it looks like they're going to be rebuilt again now, if this isn't a lame election vote-winning say-so tactic of the government's. Personally at their age, I'd rather getting newly built airframes, cheaper to maintain if nothing else, but what can be done eh? :) Indeed, I wrote that up as a nice summary of the lengthy paragraphs below, I mimicked it from a few other military aircraft's article's 'operation histories' that I have overhauled in the past.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyteto (talk • contribs) 12:14 10 April 2010
- I wouldn't disagree with you for a moment using the term as you suggest above, but the source uses the term "upgrade" and only mentions additional equipment, not rebuild. It may have happened as you say but, with only this source, "remanufacture" looks like original research -- is there another source we can add to back it up? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I myself lean towards remanufacture when it's in regard to extensive rebuilds of aircraft. Upgradings is a process that happens quite often to an airframe in service, at least three times in the last ten years for the Chinook fleet, this level of complete disassembly and recomposition happens usually only once or twice if at all in the life of an aircraft. I think it implies greater significance in the event an gets across that it wasn't a simply process of adding something to an aircraft, but also taking away. As it so happens, it looks like they're going to be rebuilt again now, if this isn't a lame election vote-winning say-so tactic of the government's. Personally at their age, I'd rather getting newly built airframes, cheaper to maintain if nothing else, but what can be done eh? :) Indeed, I wrote that up as a nice summary of the lengthy paragraphs below, I mimicked it from a few other military aircraft's article's 'operation histories' that I have overhauled in the past.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyteto (talk • contribs) 12:14 10 April 2010
- I've managed to find several usages of the term, bt none of them feel specifically worthy of listing as a reference for the word. I'll list some of the links of choice now: [1] [2] [3] Kyteto (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think model catalogues will really cut it as sources... ;-) Reckon it's best we just stick to the term that the current source uses so we can successfully complete the GA review, and then if you or anyone else finds a reliable source for "remanufacture" (or "rebuild", whatever) then it can be modified. Anyway, even though saying just "upgrade" may not convey the extent of the work, it's not incorrect to say they were upgraded to HC2 standard, because they were. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've managed to find several usages of the term, bt none of them feel specifically worthy of listing as a reference for the word. I'll list some of the links of choice now: [1] [2] [3] Kyteto (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)