Talk:Embraer EMB 312 Tucano/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 20:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review--sorry you've had to wait so long for one. In the next few days I'll do a close readthrough, noting any issues I can't immediately fix, and then go through the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

• My first impression in looking at the article is that though it appears well-sourced and comprehensive, the grammar is still far from meeting GA requirements. Normally I'm quite happy to do minor copyediting as I go, but this article appears to need major work. My copyedits to the lead can be seen here [1] as an example, and there's one sentence fragment in there I couldn't fix. (asterisk below)

The first sentence of the body gives more examples of the sort of persistent minor errors I see:

• • "The Brazilian military government considered aircraft a strategic equipment and in effort to reduce dependency from foreign companies, state-owned Embraer was establish in 1969" -- "strategic equipment" is an uncountable noun (shouldn't have "a"); the complete phrase should be "in an effort"; and the phrase should be "was established".

I hate to be a jerk about copyediting, especially when one of the main editors here is contributing in a second language and writes English a thousand times better than I write Portuguese. But this will need to be improved to pass GA, and it's more work than I as the reviewer should do myself. If you don't know any editors who might be able to help out, my suggestion would be to request a copyedit from the Guild of Copyeditors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I'll put this on hold for a week so that this issue can be addressed. If that's not enough time, this one may need to just be renominated at some point in the future.

• "Initially supported by a local order for 118 aircraft with options for an additional 50 units in October 1980, later matched by an Egyptian licence-produced purchase in 1993 and subsequently by an improved variant as the Short Tucano licence-produced in the United Kingdom" -- a sentence fragment. What was initially supported? Embraer?

Thanks for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I have copy edited the article. I don't know if this alleviates all your concerns or not. Please review my changes and feel free to revert/tweak anything you do not agree with. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Rupert--I've been following your progress and it looks like a substantial improvement. I'll do a more detailed review later today or tomorrow, but I think you've largely addressed the problems in this area. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Continuing readthrough

Okay, this looks much improved. Thanks again to Rupert for the clean-up. Here's some more comments that I'd like to hear your thoughts on. I've now worked through to the "Brazil" subsection. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I will do on the weekend. Thanks Dafranca (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• " Encouraged towards the follow on project "Universal II"" -- I'm not clear on this phrase. What is "the follow"?
• "endowment of ejection seats" -- what does "endowment" mean here? Would "addition" have the same meaning?
• "weapons captive flight trials" -- what does this phrase mean?
• "whither it reached a maximum diving speed of 607.5 kilometres per hour" -- Doesn't whither mean "to where"? I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this sentence.
• "A third prototype YT-27, further modified from the previous two prototypes, received the civilian registration mark PP-ZDK, and flew on 16 August 1982,[31] and in the following month made its international debut at the Farnborough Airshow, crossing the Atlantic just a few days after its maiden flight. " -- consider breaking up this long sentence.
• "Many features of the EMB-312 became standard in later basic training aircraft designs." -- What's the statement in the original source that supports this claim? I've read through the article twice, and I'm not sure that I see it. This could just be my mistake, though.
• " It was the first turboprop trainer developed from the beginning with military jet capability." -- this claim will need a citation.
• "making the EMB-312 the world's first trainer aircraft fitted with an ejection seat." -- also needs a citation
• The clarification needed tag should be addressed.
• "in which it is fitted" -- what is "it" in this sentence?
• "four years later six more AT-27s that had been withdrawn from the Peruvian Air Force were bought" -- rewrite to avoid passive voice
• " the Tucanos are currently used " -- rewrite with more precise date or "As of" per WP:REALTIME; looks like the source is a decade old.

• G'day, I've made a couple more tweaks, which I think deal with a few of the issues listed above. I don't have access to the sources, though, so I have not been able to deal with the point about "weapons captive flight trials" (I wasn't sure what it meant) or the citation need tags, etc. As before, please feel free to change/revert any of my changes you don't agree with. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing review

This one has definitely improved in the course of this review, but work remains to me done, as with the unsourced information noted above and the clarification needed tag; since it's been more than a week without action on these, I'm closing this review for now, though I hope it'll be renominated soon after these issues have been addressed. Thanks everybody for your work on this one--I think it's definitely getting there, -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)