Talk:Radioplane RP-77/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
This is a bit long, please break it up: Making extensive use of glass-polyester plastic construction,[2][3] the RP-77D was launched using a rocket-assisted take-off system consisting of four Loki rockets, was fitted with a radio control apparatus, and, with the assistance of radar tracking, could be operated at a considerable distance from its launching point. The conversion template defaults to British spellings, and you were mixing up Brit and American English. I fixed it by adding |sp=us to the template. I'd advise that you fix any of your other articles up for GA that have this issue.

Done. I'll try to pay better attention to the type of English used, I use pretty much "classical southern American English" in normal useage so sometimes I slip. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Very little in the infobox is sourced in the main body. Best thing to do is to write a descriptive paragraph covering all that info w/relevant cites.

Done. Somehow the Specifications section, which had the refs, got deleted - I've restored it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation from the Aeronautical Journal lacks detail. Need page and issue #, plus place of publication. Was there no article title?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can add the page number and a Google Books link, but issue and article title...those may be harder. The Google Books entry only has a snippet view. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might try searching using different terms; I've sometimes had good luck with that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll see if I can get anything done over the holiday. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, was able to add additional detail to the ref, appears it was printed as a complete year's worth of issues. No evidence of an article title can be found, but I did find enough to verify it, I hope. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Do you know the designations of the engines used in the first four prototypes? What was the date of its first flight? What exact model is shown in the infobox? What's the function of the tip tanks in that picture?

Partially done. Found the type of Lycoming engine in the -77A/C, but nothing on what kind of McCulloch engine. Working on the rest.

Done. There aren't any sources I can find saying what the McCulloch engine was, just that it was a four-cylinder. Might be the O-100, but I can't prove it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Thanks for the review. I'll get to work on this as soon as I can - there may be a bit of a delay as home internet is being off-and-on at the moment. But I'll get things fixed up ASAP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]