Talk:Supermarine Swan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 20:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Mostly there - placed on hold for some copyedits and an image license issue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• File:The Supermarine Swan behind Supermarine staff during the visit to Southampton of the Prince of Wales (June 1924).jpg is not appropriately licensed - there is no evidence that the image is actually under a Creative Commons license.

Licencing information amended, I believe the photograph is acceptable due to its age. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Reconnaissance/Passenger should not be capitalized.

Sorted. AM

• The Supermarine Southampton seems to be a successor, not a variant.

Done. AM

• Several run-on sentences that need correction, most notably The Supermarine Swan was a wooden biplane...

Sorted. AM

• Add the 's to artist's impression

Done. AM

• "was retracted more speedily: more speedily than what?

Now clarified. AM

• His proposals were not taken up...: perhaps clarify that the Southampton was derived from the Swan.

Done. AM

• The date of 9 June is given in two different sentences - once as the loan date, the other as entering service. I would recommend rewording these sentences to clarify the order of events - were the loan and entering service separate events, or one and the same?

They were the same thing, text amended to avoid potential confusion.Amitchell125 (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Given there were only two operators, the "Operators" section seems superfluous.

Agreed. Section cut (WP:AIRMOS allows editorial scope here). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that any of the "See also" section is needed. Certainly the first three links should be removed per MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN, and I don't see how a list of all flying boats ever made is particularly relevant. That's what categories are for.

Agreed. The section is a fairly common feature of aircraft articles, but its inclusion isn't universal. Text now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Parliament" is misspelled in source 11.

Done. AM

1. Well-written
2. Verifiable with no original research
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated

@Pi.1415926535: above comments hopefully now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: Almost there - I just have one more comment. This sentence is confusing: Under contract from the Air Ministry, the Swan returned by Imperial Airways on 8 March the following year. Was the operation of the Swan under contract, or was the return date specifically under the contract? I assume it was returned Imperial Airways? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not obvious that the date of return was part of the contract, and it cannot be be assumed. Hope the text is now clearer.Amitchell125 (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks great, happy to pass now. Good work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)