Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arado E.381/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:11, 26 October 2011 [1].

Arado E.381

edit

Arado E.381 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): WikiCopter 01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that, after significant work on this article, seeing it through tortuous ways, it is finally ready to take on the final test, the featured article candidacy. I personally feel that it meets criterion 1b, c, e, 2, 3 and 4. I will leave you to review its conformity to criterion 1a and d. WikiCopter 01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we give smaller page ranges for the Albrecht refs? Combing through 30+ pages is arduous
    • Done
  • check citations at the end of the Development section
    • Done
  • Check punctuation and footnote placement in article text
    • Done
  • FN 9: publisher?
    • Checking
      • Done
  • What makes http://www.luft46.com/ a high-quality reliable source?
    • Checking
      • I've spoken with the author (via email) and he says he used multiple books and magazines. If that doesn't satisfy you, I can remove the data table with the citation... WikiCopter 23:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for minor formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods
    • Done
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This is awkward: pilot would have been required to have executed a glide without power to the ground Wouldn't a better phrasing be: pilot would have then glided to a landing on under-belly skids or somesuch? Gliding is by definition unpowered. And the whole bit about executed a glide is cumbersome.
    • clarified
      • Better, though I still think that "unpowered" is redundant.
  • frontal cross section possible in order to increase its chances
    • done
  • Avoid nominalizations like requiring the pilot. Use, rather, "and required"
    • not sure what you mean... did what I could
      • I'd suggest combining these sentences to increase the reability: possible to increase its chances of surviving shots from the front. This also forced the pilot to lie in a prone position.
  • Either explain this further or delete it entirely: Parasite aircraft were unusual for aviation. And it's rather oddly phrased as well.
    • killed off
  • I doubt that the Germans called each version by the English term "Mark". They probably just used I, II, and III for the different versions. Explain the German nomenclature more precisely.
    • This was brought up before in some review (I forgot which :P easy with so many hanging around). The German term can very possibly be translated into "Mark".
      • IIRC, the German term in this case is "Baureihe", and "Mark" is a good translation for that. However, Sturm has a point, that if the Germans call it "E.381-III" etc., that's probably easy enough to understand without inserting a "Mark", since "Baureihe" wasn't there. - Dank (push to talk) 11:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first comma in The E.381 was cancelled...
    • fixed
  • And fixed the capitalization of the designation for the mother aircraft.
    • done
  • You changed tenses from the rest of the paragraph here: The pilot would lie in a prone position in
    • fixed (I hope)
      • You've changed this to future tense in a paragraph that's past tense: The pilot would have been in a prone position Change the verb (only) to past tense to fix this.
  • This is awkward: On top of the fuselage at the wing mounts the aircraft had a blister for a single MK 108
    • done
      • Still awkward. How about Above the wing roots, a MK 108 cannon was mounted in a dorsal blister. then add the bit about its ammo in a separate sentence.
  • Judging by the cross-section, the rocket engine is better described as in the rear fuselage rather than under the tail boom, which is at the extreme rear of the fuselage. Same for the drogue parachute.
    • fixed
  • This is awkward: As pilots could only enter from a hatch above the cockpit, the pilot would have had to enter the E.381
    • done
      • Slightly better, but the problem is that pilots is used twice in close proximity. How about something that begins with: As the cockpit was only accessible from a hatch above it, ...?
  • You provide the thrust rating for the A-2 model, but what about the B model used in "I"?
    • Not provided in sources
  • So the "I" could carry rockets in addition to the cannon? At least that's how I interpret the specs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice little article, good work. I found no outstanding issues, and in light of my comments at the article's peer review, I'm happy to support. Sp33dyphil © • © 05:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Comments from MilborneOne - some good work but I am not sure it is 100% yet just some minor stuff: MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some items in the lead like the bit about cross-section dont appear in the main body.
  • Lead - Had the Arado E.381 been completed it would have been may be better as The Arado E.381 was to have been..
  • The first sentence is a bit lumpy and I am not sure Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany sounds right.
  • Lead - Each of three proposed design variants is the first mention of variants may be better worded.
  • Development - the interceptor was designed is the first use of the term interceptor it was not used in the lead and is not used again.
  • Development - carried on another aircraft may be better as carried under or carried by.
  • Arado E.381/1 - The aircraft's had straight wings mounted at the top of the aircraft doesnt make sense
  • Arado E.381/1 - The first design, the Mark I, a fuselage with a circular needs tweaking probably had a fuselage or similar.
  • Arado E.381/1 - The landing skid was retractable, and landing required.. although true the sentence is about landing so it may be better to say the To land the retractable landing gear was extended and a drogue parachute deployed.
  • Arado E.381/II - should 16ft 3in (4.95m) be the other way round, metric first.
    • All tweaked. Would appreciate if somebody read through the article and listed all the prose problems. RL is really catching up with me, and I have no time to spend here... As for your last point, I rounded up the meter figure (makes sense that the Germans used 5 meters instead of 4.95????? meters, right?).

After all most three weeks at FAC, this doesn't look ready. There was repetitive prose in the lead, the WP:LEAD is underdeveloped, and on first glance at a random section, I found a typo:

  • The second design, the Mark II was very similar to the Mark I, aside from being larger and having smaller fins[1] The variant was planned ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Arado was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Arado_E.381/archive2&oldid=1078786038"