Wikipedia:Peer review/B-17 Flying Fortress survivors/archive1

List of B-17 Flying Fortress survivors edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a fresh perspective on the survivors series articles may improve them all. Note: This is a list, and not an article, per se.

Thanks, Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 07:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechOutsider:

Per WP:MOS, rename the titles of the section. Don't use Boeing over and over again in the headings of each section. And don't use B-17 over and over.
The sections are a little short. You should only use external links if the information is copyrighted (main reason). Integrate the information found in external links into your article, per Wikipedia:External links
~~The B-17 survivors is mostly comprised of embedded lists. Such lists disrupt the flow of the article. Try prose.~~ Looking on the discussion page, I see it is a list. Sorry.
Something minor: Since you have over 100 refs, use {{reflist|3}}
Don't use external links at references. Use a template such as cite web.

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a very good idea for a list, and I think it has the potential to be a WP:FL, but needs a lot of work to get there. I agree with the points given above and will expand on some of them. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

I was confused by the title - I thought it referred to human survivors, perhaps people who survived B-17 crashes or perhaps notable living pilots and crewmemebers. Could the title be "List of surviving B-17 Flying Fortresses" or ""List of extant B-17 Flying Fortresses" instead?
The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded from its current two sentences. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
I agree that the article needs fewer sections / headers too. I think this is because it is currently poorly organized - if there were one or two sortable tables then most of the information in the headers could be in the tables instead.
Article really needs a copyedit for grammar, spelling etc. Two examples: A list is also provided of other Flying Fortress' on display around the world the proper plural is Flying Fortresses, OR need plural and missing verb in Altogether 44 B-17[s] have survived and, as of January 2007, 14 airframes [are] currently in flying condition.
Article contradicts itself as to numbers of surviving and flyable aircraft: Altogether 44 B-17 have survived and, as of January 2007, 14 airframes currently in flying condition. or is it As of January 2007, 58 B-17s are known to have survived, with 12 currently in flying condition.? I did not bother to count what is in the tables.
Needless duplication - why does there need to be two separate listings for "Individual histories" and "B-17 survivors"?
I would make a sortable table with columns for the type (C, D, E, F, G), the manufacturer (Boeing, Douglas-Long Beach, Lockheed Vega), and the rest of the information in the yellow and black B-17 survivors table head. It might be that the table could split into flyable and not flyable (although that would be fine under condition). I would separate the current "Unknown" section and call it something like "Nose art panels" or if there are others where only parts survive, perhaps "Parts only".
Background has no refs and needs them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others (or perhaps expanded) to improve flow.
Provide context for the reader - explain briefly what the variant letters (B17C vs B17G) mean, or why there were three manufacturers.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]