Talk:Nord Gerfaut/GA1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 13:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- I see Hartmann has published on this topic so I am willing to accept the source as minimally reliable.
Is "The Galtier Delta Family" actually referenced? If not, it should be moved to further reading.
- I see Hartmann has published on this topic so I am willing to accept the source as minimally reliable.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- The first sentence needs work. It is burdened with too many acronyms and foreign language words upfront. I would suggest omitting the second organization if it wasn't directly involved in the production of the aircraft, and consider whether the full French-language name of SFECMAS is necessary or helpful for the casual reader. Also, this information should be included and cited in the body per MOS:LEADREL: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".
- Dropped the lengthy French names and reworked the lede.
- "The Nord 1402 Gerfaut had its origin in a state-sponsored study into delta and swept wings. To provide data for these studies" Study or studies? Which state?
- "To utilise this data" Shouldn't it be "based on this data"? Presumably the data was gathered to make better aircraft?
(t · c) buidhe 09:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sturmvogel 66 I do see one issue which is that the first sentence now states: "originally designed and built by It was" I think there are some missing words there. (t · c) buidhe 20:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- <embarrassed>Oops, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sturmvogel 66 I do see one issue which is that the first sentence now states: "originally designed and built by It was" I think there are some missing words there. (t · c) buidhe 20:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)