Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce Merlin/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:52, 6 October 2009 [1].

Rolls-Royce Merlin edit

Nominator(s): Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the featured article criteria. The article follows the structure guidelines given at the recently formed Aircraft Engine Task Force with the addition of a 'Production' section that was felt necessary. A sub article, List of Rolls-Royce Merlin variants, was created during the process to reduce article length. Recent extensive work by several editors including myself has concentrated mainly on compliance with the Manual of Style, copy editing and verification of references. A recent peer review (now archived) did not reveal any major problems. I realise that there may be minor issues remaining and am fully prepared, as nominator, to act on any requirements noted. The Rolls-Royce Merlin is a logical choice due to its relatively high historic profile, if the nomination is successful it would be the first aircraft engine featured article on Wikipedia. I have no particular bias towards this engine, I have a reasonable set of reference books and my aircraft engineering background has helped. Units in the 'Variants' section have been left abbreviated as they have in the 'Specifications' section. Many thanks Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I've watched most of the recent editing on this article. When the first suggestion of this as a FA came up, I made several comments. All of my points were addressed to my satisfaction. The article itself covers and important topic in aircraft engines and covers it well. Detailed descriptions of the development and improvement process are excellent. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review subpage. Eubulides (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I've got that and will work on it now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added alt text to the captions now, the infobox image is still not showing as having alt text using the tool, I tried to null it with the '|link=' parameter in various positions as there was no caption originally but this did not work, perhaps this is due to it being used in an infobox? Forgive me if the alt text is not perfect, this is the first time I have added it to an article and can understand the need completely. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was quick! I fixed the infobox problem and tweaked the alt text to avoid phrases like "is shown" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Some more phrases that need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability and WP:ALT#Repetition include "in a museum" (multiple times), "in a Spitfire", "the carburettor, supercharger and intercooler". Finally, the alt text for File:RR Merlin labeled.jpg doesn't convey to the visually impaired reader the essence of that diagram, which which is that the engine is centered around a large propeller shaft, and that there are two cylinder heads in a V shape at the top, each with six cylinders. The alt text for that image need not list every label and detail, but a bit of the essence would be helpful. Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like to keep on top of things!! I need to speak with the aviation project template co-ordinator to have the alt text parameter added where needed, I would guess that our many other templates do not have the facility. Will adjust the last mentioned image. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick work; it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will look at them and replace them with reliable sources if they don't quote their sources, I should note that I did not add any of those links, preferring to use books instead. Can you clarify the point about publishers and link titles? The 'icons.org' link just opened for me. Will take a little time to do this and I am working for the next three days. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you have is something like this:[http://randomurl.example.html PUblisher - Title of Link] (date retrieved) when what you want is [http://randomurl.example.html Title of Link] Publisher (date retrieved), with the name of the publisher outside the external link. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was worried that this applied to the book cites, I suspect that I will be replacing most if not all of the web links with book references. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I've corrected (hopefully) the ref format until replacements can be found. I suspect the information covered by the Lovesey pdf may already be contained in the adjacent refs. --Red Sunset 19:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced 'fathom.com' with a book cite, I have removed the 'spitfiresite.com' link and the text that it was supporting as it wasn't mentioned there, I removed this text previously as there is no mention of this engine testing programme from other book sources that I would expect to see it in. It can be re-inserted if someone finds a reliable source.'Icons.org' is a UK Government sponsored site as part of the Department of Culture and is staffed by journalists and academics. The section of 'unlimited excitement.com' used quotes Graham White, "Allied Piston Engines of World War II", 1995 Society of Automotive Engineers as the reference source, I don't possess this book but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. Will look at the others in due course. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) I have moved the Lovesey pdf lecture to the external links section, it had a permission of 'courtesy of Harry Phil' (may have the surname wrong there) but I can not clarify beyond that. To replace this reference I have cited the original journal that it featured in. The lecture is available to purchase online at a cost of £13. Clicking on the blue date links at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html reveals scanned copies of the original test reports which being UK government documents are in the public domain after 50 years (to the best of my knowledge). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html lists 12 reference books at the bottom of the page, several are the same books that I am using (Lumsden, Gunston, Pugh), I can replace these cites with the author, year and page numbers in a conventional cite style if that is desired. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm as it shows no sources on that page at least, also removed the text that it was supporting as I can not find that in my references, again this can be re-inserted if it is found in a book. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.spitfireperformance.com is similar to 'wwiiaircraftperformance.org' and shows a scanned part copy of the original unclassified test document and appears to have copied the document out in HTML format verbatim. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but if we can't determine if the site hosting the lovesdy article has permission, we shouldn't link to it at all, even as an External Link. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html has been replaced with Jane's book cites, specification figures adjusted to match the different Merlin variant described. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.spitfireperformance.com has been replaced with a book cite from Price where the same report is given. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Lovesey PDF has now been removed from the external links section (per WP:EL) as the permission can not be readily ascertained. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References using http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Pride%20of%20Pay%20n%20Pak/Rolls-Royce%20Merlin%20V-1650%20Engine.htm have been removed as surplus, the section is covered by a single Jane's cite given at the first line. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the paragraph supported by the questioned source http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html. I personally believe this source to be valid due to the original documents being shown. All of the questioned web reference sources have now either been removed from the article or replaced with book cites. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer notified of unstruck questioned sources [2] as suggested in the FAC process instructions. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article has quality writing and is well cited. Issues brought up above appear to have been addressed. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It looks ready to me. Let's move forward on this. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is quite a lot of text in the "Prototype engines" and "Variants" without in-line citations and appears to be un-sourced. Surely, it would fail to attain FA status because of this alone. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a look at this, was rather hoping not to add a cite after every line, will take a short while. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a blanket cite to Jane's at the top of "Variants", and another for the preceding text. --Red Sunset 20:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited all the prototypes now and added a tiny bit of extra information while I was there. I can cite all the variants if the Jane's blanket cite just added is not sufficient. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that a blanket cite would be suitable, if it provides verification for all the types. I trust this is the case. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That source formed the basis of the variants section, and further inline cites have been provided for additional information. --Red Sunset 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of other blocks of text scattered throughout the article where the verification is not clear. Snowman (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it would be good practice to make sure all of the images are on commons. The image of the Vickers F.7/41 has a narrow border, which could be removed. I think that the caption "Merlin ejector exhaust detail" could be improved. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)The images have been passed as ok above, it's non-free images or unsourced ones that can cause problems is it not? I cropped the border of the Vickers image very slightly, had not noticed that before. On the exhaust caption I kept it short originally to stop it displacing the section header below, although I think text has been added in since, I could lengthen it but unfortunately I can't remember what mark of Spitfire it was! I do know that it was taken at Duxford, could add that. On the variants referencing Jane's covers very comprehensively the variants up to the Mk 266, it stops there as it was originally written in 1945. Lumsden covers all the marks up to the Mk 724 and includes the Packard V-1650-1 to 25. For the earlier marks Jane's is possibly the better reference as it gives the weight and power output of every mark. That section could be shortened as we split off a big list and duplicated table to List of Rolls-Royce Merlin variants, similarly the Packard V-1650 article was created from the Merlin article, it really was very long before the splits happened. Will have a look at the 'stray blocks.' Thanks for your input, much appreciated. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found two paragraphs without cites, have now added them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be the 'Grace Spitfire' based at Duxford – originally a Mk. IX? --Red Sunset 22:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would have noticed the second seat! I don't think it is MH434 either. Just a note that I will be only be able to pop in for the next three days in the evening (GMT) so apologies if there is no immediate response. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the image check above was for obvious copyright problems only. My comment about the images is regards different aspects to that mentioned above. Commons is an ideal place to store images. To reflect the best of the wiki and good practice I think that images should be transferred to commons - that may not be a FA criteria, but I think that it would help to give a good impression. I think that you are going to need every point you can get to reach FA status. One of the images still has a narrow border and is inconsistent with the other images that do not have borders. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the exhaust caption now that I have identified the aircraft from my original uncropped version. I checked all the images for borders just now and can't see any, have you purged since I edited the Vickers one? If it is a different image please let me know which one it is and I will fix it (my eyes are not what they were!). Really got to go as I have to be up early for work in the morning, cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit of mouse clicking and the narrow border has gone now. Snowman (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images now on Commons. --Red Sunset 18:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marvellous, thankyou. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just spent 20 mins or more tidying up the images - putting the aircraft image in a category on commons, tagging the old image on en wiki for deletion, uploading the original image to commons and tagging it with "original", tagging the modified image with "retouched". I think that makes the images easier to find and people can also refer back to the original. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very thorough – thankyou for tidying the loose ends. --Red Sunset 20:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an omission that there is not a photograph of a Spitfire? Snowman (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the image of the deflector exhaust detail shows the Merlin fitted to a Spitfire, but I think a conscious effort has been made to avoid over-reference to the Spitfire generally since the engine was also fitted to many other aircraft. --Red Sunset 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining the choice of aircraft images. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any photographs of the factories to add some more variety to the images? Snowman (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but they might help if anyone can provide suitable ones. --Red Sunset 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are! I did not think to look in the Rolls-Royce category, I have added two images from Commons, editing the factory photo to remove an intrusive lamp post. With information from that photo I managed to refine the factory location wikilink. They compliment the text nicely. The location of the production line image is unknown unfortunately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduction: I think that the introduction is very difficult to read. I am not even sure what the main topics of the paragraphs are - it looks like content had been added randomly. The introduction is often the last thing to put right, so there is no hurry. Having looked at the source website, I was not sure about the bit about being considered <by who> a British icon, so I have deleted that bit - it does not appear anywhere else in the article anyway. I have reordered parts of the introduction, but parts of it still need to put in plain English, and more key facts probably need to be added. Snowman (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements in introduction seen. Snowman (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think to understand the Merlin, its wartime importance must be mentioned with reference to enemy aircraft, engines, and perhaps rockets. The article seems to be about bits of metal mainly of interest to mechanics. I am sure the main editors will know what to add. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above two comments will be taken into consideration, but note that the iconic status of the Merlin is mentioned in the Survivors section. --Red Sunset 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is very brief. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the four paragraph lead (as it was) had been carefully considered by many editors over a long period, the article talk page and revision history would indicate the care and thought that had gone in to it's 'moulding', it was in effect the 'consensus' version that everyone was happy with. I personally believed that it summarised the content of the article well without going into excessive detail. The lead is still being edited today, a product of a Wiki where everyone has a slightly different view of what words exactly should be in there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking about a slightly different wording, I said that I thought the the introduction was difficult to read and that it looked like content had been added randomly in places. I note that the introduction is being improved and I know how difficult it is to write introductions. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a guideline at Wikipedia:AETF#Images where it is recommended that images of rarer aircraft types are included in the 'Applications' section, I believe this makes an aircraft engine article more interesting and balanced, an image of a Spitfire could be included, where best to place it I don't know. I agree that an image or images of the factories would be welcome to break up the text, that section was written quite recently, unfortunately so far I have not found any Commons images to use there yet. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are others sources of images including the the "British War Museum". The "Geograph British Isles" have many places and buildings. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that most aircraft engine articles are just about 'bits of metal mainly of interest to mechanics' (I would add 'enthusiasts'), how to describe a particular engine's 'operational history' is difficult and is probably why it is avoided in engine reference sources beyond reports of reliability and performance, leaving that aspect for historians who cover the parent aircraft type. It could be stated that 'the Merlin won the Battle of Britain' for instance but clearly referencing a statement like that is very difficult and would be prone to questioning. At times major edit warring has broken out in the Supermarine Spitfire and Messerschmitt Bf 109 articles, this unfortunately overspilled in to the 'Fuel' section of the Merlin article and, more recently, the supercharger article. One of the Good Article criteria is 'does the article remain focussed on the topic?', I believe that this article does. In other words I am personally reluctant to add lengthy accounts of wartime operations here although other editors remain free of course to do so if they wish. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not indicate "lengthy accounts of wartime operations", but I think that its place in history should be mentioned with reference to other manufacturers' engines. One FA criteria is that the subject should be fully covered. I also think that earlier engines, later engines and early jet engines, should also be briefly mentioned to outline the Merlins place in history. I do not see why historians views of the engine should not be included; in fact, I think that it is an omission that these sort of holistic viewpoints are not included. Snowman (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as British engines are concerned they were few competitors to the Rolls-Royce V-12 range, the Fairey Prince (V-12) project (three built) was actively discouraged by the government of the day, the Merlin's closest earlier relative, the Rolls-Royce Kestrel, is mentioned. The nearest equivalent German engines were the Daimler-Benz DB 600 series, the Daimler-Benz DB 601 is listed with four other comparable engines of different nationalities in the 'See also' section for readers to visit. I would include historian's views of the Merlin if references could be found for them, the book Sigh for a Merlin by Alex Henshaw (listed in the 'Further reading' section) is one that I don't possess yet and may contain extra information although I believe that it is limited to his experiences of test flying brand new Spitfires in England. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment as a know-nothing on this topic, I found this interesting and well written. Three queries
  • In origins, "Merlin C and E engines" Why are the letters italicised
  • Although I would not go as far as Snowman, I did wonder what superseded this engine?
  • In the lead "most numerous" reads slightly oddly, but factually and grammatically correct, so it's probably just me
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the positive comments and taking time to read through the article, I see the formatting point and the 'most numerous' wording in the lead has been adjusted for the better. The immediate successor to the Merlin was the larger capacity Rolls-Royce Griffon mentioned in the last paragraphs of the lead and the 'Origin' section. As a 1930s design it is not mentioned in references that the Merlin was replaced by the jet engine, several other late WW II engine designs and projects were cancelled or production curtailed due to the advent of jet power, the unflown Rolls-Royce Crecy definitely being one of them. The Merlin was not, it appears, in the 3,000 horsepower plus piston engine class that the jet engine effectively took over from. The end of large scale Merlin production is more related to the end of the war with 'new crankshafts being thrown out of the window for scrap the day after the Japanese surrender' according to the author Alec Lumsden. Thanks again. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article has quality writing and is well cited. The intro reads well and is nicely rounded off. I'm not an engines buff but this article held my interest. --TraceyR (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rolls-Royce_Merlin/archive1&oldid=1144461030"