Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/CFM International CFM56

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation‎ | Peer review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CFM International CFM56 edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I have mostly completed a massive update the article, including writing the development and design sections from scratch and updating the rest of the article. I would like to eventually nominate the article for GA or A-class, and I'd like to complete a peer review first. One aspect that I would particularly appreciate comments on is the technical level of the article. I've tried to mind that through the article, but I am a jet engine guy, so what makes sense to me may easily confuse a non-expert. I'd like to fix that where it happens.

Thanks,

SidewinderX (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbus

Great work, I will come back as I am quite busy with something else at the moment (remind me if I don't!). Looks like it can go to B class to me. Would you like a general review or a surgical review?!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The surgical one will hurt more, but it should make the GA or A class review that much easier. -SidewinderX (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! I will review for slightly higher than that, maybe late tomorrow. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then here goes, excuse the bullet points and randomness of comments:

  • Lead - Pretty good, some terms could be wikilinked at first instance (high-bypass), lbf, kN, can turn the lead blue but it's unavoidable.
Wikilinked a few things here... is it standard practice to wikilink units at first use? If so, I can do that, I didn't realize that. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's standard practise to wikilink units (and anything else that is judged needing a wikilink for that matter) at the first instance. Links can be (and sometimes need to be) repeated throughout the article if it is distant fom the first one. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, wikilinked lbf and kN. I'll try and get other units as I find them. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Venerable DC-8'? Sounds like you like it (NNPOV), how about 'aging DC-8' which is more factual?
Changed it, aging is the better word. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abbreviations - FADEC, AMST. Should be written in full with the abbreviations afterward, AMST is written in full a couple of paras before the abbreviation but not wikilinked there.
I think I had the first appearance spelled out and wiki-linked, but the next instance is a couple sections later, so I have done the same there. Is it less confusing now?
I have also spelled out the first instance of FADEC. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added AMST after the first full wikilinked definition as the abbreviation is used later, also linked ETOPS noting that our article titles use the abbreviations but they are explained in the first line of the lead. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed compressor. Is there a better turbine page? (Honestly, this all goes back to what we discussed on the task force page... once we get a good glossary page going we will be in good shape for this kind of instance. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely not the best link, but I can't find a direct link to something better. That's another component that will be resolved by the future engine glossary. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably better to unlink it then as most readers will understand roughly what a fan is when relating to jet engines. Turbofan would be a good place to describe the components (with some re-organisation), I looked but couldn't find a good section to link it to. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlinked. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is engine trim?
I added a nota bene for engine trim; does that help explain it? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Safety record - I saw mention of the Kegworth crash in the variants, a little hidden perhaps. I would use a 'Safety' section and look for any more engine related incidents to make sure that good and bad points are fairly balanced.
That's a fair point. I will take a look at this, it will require a bit more research on my part. And, TBH, the Kegworth accident was from the original editor and I just corrected it using the wiki article on the accident. Bad form, I know. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is common practise (and allowed) to use text or info from other WP articles including the reference sources, noting where it came from in the edit summary if you use a large chunk. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I haven't really worked on an article with a "safety" section before... I'm thinking I should just discuss aviation accidents where the the engine was at fault or involved in, right? There are lots of airworthiness directives (some of which are in response to accidents), but I shouldn't go by those right? That seems fairly non-notable to me (by wiki standards). I should just go by the accidents, and tie in the airworthiness fixes that are related to those accidents, right?-SidewinderX (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, just generally unless a particular AD was important and even then we would not use the actual AD number apart from in a cite perhaps. The McDonnell Douglas DC-10 has a large safety section which could give ideas. Would need nothing near as big for the CFM56, it seems a very reliable engine to me apart from some early glitches. Have to be careful that a single but very notable accident can appear to give a negative picture. In the Kegworth accident an engine did fail but the crew misdiagnosed it and shut the wrong engine down, could have landed quite happily on this single good engine, classic chain of events accident. Most engine articles don't have a safety section and it's not a recommended section in the WP:AETF article structure guideline either but the option is there if needed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I've started to do a little research for this. Here is an example (flight global pdf) of a CFM56 failure. However, this incident didn't result in an aircraft crash, or any deaths. I wouldn't think this type of incident to be notable, but I'd like a second opinion. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one seems FOD caused/related and non-notable if no similar incidents show up. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added an Engine Failures section with the two major incidents/changes that I found. Can ya'll take a look at them to see if I've done a decent job of addressing this? Also, I'm not sure how I feel about what I named the section... I didn't organize it specific accident, so I didn't want to call the section "Accidents"... any thoughts? -SidewinderX (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red link CF-6-80 could be filled with General Electric CF6 piped. I think you linked to it earlier in a different form which is a redirect.
Fixed! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not work out how to fix these phrases; 'the rejection the application' and 'grounds for rejections'.
"the rejection of the application", and "grounds for the rejection". Fixed! (Make sense now?) -SidewinderX (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numbers less than ten in full (except in tables and designations), 'I have 2 dogs' is written 'I have two dogs'. I think you know that as there was a mixture of use, I fixed it.
I'll look for more instances as I read back thorugh the article. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed a few more, probably got them all now. Mathematical formulae is another exception so the bypass ratios of 5:1 and 6:1 that I just formatted are good now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Variants/Applications - Some duplication, you could change the header 'Variants' to 'Variants and applications' as you have included the aircraft types there. Could then loose the applications section. Sometimes this is kept though as readers might jump straight to the section from the TOC. It's a judgement thing.
I kept it for exactly your last reasons. That said, I'd welcome a third or fourth opinion here. *looks around at empty peer review stands* -SidewinderX (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images - You could left align some for variety (all right aligned at the moment). The lead image has a copyright note and a PD release, a bit contradictory. It's only a problem at FAC level where they look at everything.
I'm not an image expert on wiki, but it's on commons, and it has a CC license on it... am I missing something?
Not necessarily but I have learned through two FACs that some images on Commons are not tagged correctly or should not be there at all. I assumed that everything on Commons was ok, how wrong I was!! It's not a problem at this stage (assuming that there is a problem) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that make sense, but what is wrong with this particular image? If it has the CC license, it should be fine, right? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notice 'Copyright © 2007 David Monniaux' is not exactly standard, seems to be there as a warning where the license allows it to be used. The image is missing the standard information template. Probably ok but there are editors who dedicate themselves to checking them all out at FAC level, four apparently good Commons images were questioned at the Rolls-Royce R FAC review and I had to remove two of them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved a couple of images to the left. You're right, it helps break up the page. I'm still looking for another good image or two to add to the development part of the article... SidewinderX (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, although it looks better that has introduced a minor problem of displacing the section headers to the right (there is a MOS guideline on this). Try juggling them to fit, two alternative fixes for this problem are to shorten the captions to reduce the height of the image or add text to the section, I usually end up doing the latter!! Not easy is it?!! I have even resorted to cropping the actual image rather than giving up. I did this here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I fixed the lower images (added some text to the fan/booster section). Do I need to fix the photo of the KC-135R? It's *kinda* a section header, but it's not of the type that shows up in the ToC... do I need to fix that or can I leave it as is? -SidewinderX (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try to find the guideline but personally I try to keep it neat and consistent. I have fixed it by cropping the image (can be reverted easily) as the extra sky and cloud were not required and also trimmed some words from the caption. Also wikilinked the KC-135 in the caption as it is normal to do that. There is another guideline about people's heads facing the text, I do this with aircraft and engines (it does look better IMO) so by that the KC-135 should be on the right!! Totally optional but something that the reviewers look for higher up the chain. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contractions - Wouldn't, couldn't etc. should be would not, could not unless used in a quote. (I think there is one that I did not fix). '&' instead of 'and' (except in P&W of course).
  • Consistency - Snecma in the lead but SNECMA everywhere else, suggest use of the first form throughout the article.
Fixed the lead to "SNECMA". The wiki article for the company has it as Snecma, but it is an acronym for "Société Nationale d'Étude et de Construction de Moteurs d'Aviation", and almost every source I've seen does it as "SNECMA". -SidewinderX (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically SNECMA recently changed their name to Snecma and that is the form that our WP article has so is the one that we should use. It does look odd especially with the older SNECMA engines and totally agree that this is how many reference sources give it. There are two choices, Snecma or SNECMA throughout but I know that there is a 'campaign' to remove SNECMA from our articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some extra words in places, 'in what was likely the most important early purchase', 'an important early purchase'. Some of the grammar is a bit 'clunky' (not my strong point), I know someone that can help but he is busy helping me at the moment!
I'll take another couple read through, but if you can get your guru (RS?) to take a look, that would be great! -SidewinderX (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference section and citing - I use a header structure of References>Footnotes>Citations>Bibliography or References>Notes>Bibliography. I also use the 'short cite' method where books are listed and the author and page number are given as the cite. Some of the cites don't have page numbers?
Most of my published cites come from journal articles (digital scans), and I usually don't put pages numbers for specific cites. There are a couple books out there that might have some interesting info (ex GE executives), so I might try and grab those. I can try and add the page numbers for where the journal articles were originally published, but that info might not be completely preserved. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I liked it generally and can see that you have put a lot of effort in, I will complete the B class checklist and hope that other folk add their comments. Most of the above comments are suggestions, it is up to you whether you want to heed them, I have been forced to change things in articles where in hindsight I believed the original version was better. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups installed as a 'gadget'? Great for finding re-directs, can get in the way at times but is generally a very useful editing tool. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a look at the 'failure' section for you. I think the lead sentence could do with some kind of 'balancer' saying that the engine has a very good safety record, not sure how you would cite it unless some numbers are available. Should be noted in the Kegworth section that although an engine failed the accident was caused mainly by the crew shutting down the wrong engine due to confusion with the glass cockpit vibration gauges and their lack of training/experience on the newly introduced 737-400. Are the second two 737 fan-blade occurrences accidents or incidents as there is a difference in the meaning? Could be worth expanding briefly on them as I wanted to know the circumstances. Wikilink 'flameout' perhaps? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've tried to address all that. Take a look and let me know what you think! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the ticket! I tweaked it slightly, the word 'boasts' is a point of view description of the claim, 'state' is more neutral. Just spotted something else that is noted at higher level reviews, non breaking spaces between numbers and units, more guidance at WP:NBSP, not needed in specs tables BTW. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think someone else pointed that out to me... any chance there's an automated tool to do that for me? Or do I need to do that all manually? -SidewinderX (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes! I have noticed 'Smackbot' visiting articles that have problems with tag formatting and it often puts in NBSPs while it is there. Will look into it for you. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look at Smackbot's page and could not see how you request a visit so I've place an undated cite tag in the article which should prompt it to visit, fingers crossed! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fnlayson
I think the article is well done. Just needs a little touch up in places. Check out the links in the Toolbox menu here. Make sure unit conversions are provided. Most tables only list US units. I started on fixing that. Try to format the references like what is shown in WP:CITE. Italics in refs is usually for book titles and magazine/newspaper publishers. Underlining does not seem to be used. I tried to clarify wording in places. If I incorrectly changed the meaning, change it back or adjust as needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Do ya'll mind reading through the article one more time, focused on technical legibility? Jet engines are fairly technical in nature, and I want to make sure that I link or explain as many of the really technical parts as possible. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. Any problems with the change to the table I did? -Fnlayson (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that table looks better. I guess I can tackle the tedious task of doing that to all of them. I made my tables using the Excel 2 Wiki converter and just copy and pasted; I don't really know anything about table syntax. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of the table formatting. I wanted to make sure you thought it was an improvement before going any further. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've gotten the units straight in the tables I think! -SidewinderX (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing any unclear technical wording. But working on the article a bit probably helped me. Maybe ask for comments on this at WT:Air or WT:Aviation. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Peer_review/CFM_International_CFM56&oldid=332028121"