| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the US Aviation Cumulus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I've expanded the "Design and development" section, with additional major details form numerous online sources -- particularly noted aircraft reviewer Dave Higdon, in the USUA's official magazine, as well as material from Aero-News Network and Aviator's Hotline, and key details from the NTSB Final Report on the crash of the original prototype (followed by Johnson's own admission of inadequacy for the development).
Note that I did not want to undermine the prior editors' ref cites. They are from sources apparently conventionally used in Wikipedia on articles about this type of aircraft, and some are newer than my sources. However, my sources are actual links to online texts -- while the prior citations were to printed publications, generally -- without text viewable online. Moreover, some of my citations are probably more journalistic or official in nature, while some of the prior citations appear to simply cite "directory" publications that simply regurgitate the manufacturers' published data.
This is particularly relevant given the need for five references at one point in the text (undoubtedly triggering some gripe about "citation overkill"). Stripping the prior citations would have undermined some of the validation of some elements of the preceding text.
In a technical explication, in Wikipedia, it is common for numerous specific details to each be resourced from a unique pair or trio of sources -- often overlapping between details Hence, it becomes wildly impractical to separate out the sourcing, point-by-point, without creating an almost unreadable text. Under such circumstances, it's simply more realistic to group all the relevant reference citations in a cluster at the end of the text. (e.g.: "The 80-pound(1)(2), three-legged(2)(3), mixed-breed(1)(3), brown(1)(2)(4) dog had a red collar(3)(5)." becomes simply: "The 80-pound, three-legged, mixed-breed, brown dog had a red collar(1)(2)(3)(4)(5).")
- Thanks for your note, It all looks good. When I start an article like this from the sources I have been using, I always hope that other editors, with more extensive sources, will be able to come along and expand it. I only wish we had a photo of a Cumulus we could add. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)