Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Lebaudy Patrie

Lebaudy Patrie

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

Close as Passed. -Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Having achieved B-class, with the help of Nimbus227, on 9 Jan., the article now contains more information, more detailed data on the construction and also an extra image or two. Would some experienced editors please have a look at it and assess what needs to be done to achieve A, GA or whatever? Many thanks --TraceyR (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much (i.e. nothing!) has happened here since Jan. '09. Having looked at it again, I still think that the article satisfies the GA criteria - but then, what do I know? I am certainly not impartial here. I'd welcome comments for improving this article or even (especially!) endorsements. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Needs a copyedit for some punctuation, but it was written well enough to keep my interest. -- Born2flie (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the suggestion for improvement. Some improvements to punctuation and phrasing have been made; also the use of the pronouns "she" and "her" is now (I hope) consistent when referring to the Patrie. --TraceyR (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: How lovely it is to see this article again after all this time. There are three issues that need sorting Tracey, feel free to ask for help with them:
- ~~There are two links that lead to disambiguation pages[1], this is bad, try and find where they should end up.~~
- ~~Three of your links have "died"[2], whilst another three seem to be having some sort of problem.~~
- ~~None of the images have alt text [3], this will need to be added.~~ Ryan4314 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed assistance - I had no idea that these tools existed. I have remedied the dab and alt text points; the references will take a bit longer, I fear. It's a shame that the film of the Patrie seems to be no longer available. Perhaps it is still out there; worth a look, anyway. Do you think that this article is A or even GA material? Thanks for your help.--TraceyR (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do the above things mentioned I think it's definitely an A-class. When/if you take to FAC it will need copyediting, the people there will advise you on that. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the deadlinks and adjusted the text accordingly - well, commented the links out, in the hope that at least the earlyaviator site comes on-stream again soon. The loss of the newspaper archive is perhaps part of a trend away from free access, something that will make our time on WP harder as more and more links go dead. So I think it is ready for the next step. As to FA status, that would be really satisfying. --TraceyR (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tracey, you don't have to remove dead/problematic links, they can always be fixed. Don't let your article suffer for the sake of these gradings. Would you like me to fix those dead links for you. Also a couple of your Alt texts need rewording, would you mind me doing that for you? Ryan4314 (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I tried fixing those links, I couldn't find any replacements for them. What I recommend is that you perhaps revert your removal of the links and let the matter be brought up at FAC. The people there understand this sort of thing a lot better than me and might be able to help. I've changed my !vote to support, but I hope you get round to fixing those alt descriptions per WP:ALT, see you at FAC Tracey, well done! Ryan4314 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help and guidance, which are much appreciated. I see that the alt text has to more descriptive and less factual. That'll be for tomorrow. I need to find out a lot more about requirements before I start assessing articles! Perhaps the missing links will be back before I have finished! --TraceyR (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't stay away! I've gone to town on some of the alt texts. Now that there are two support votes and none against, can the assessment be changed? Who is allowed to do this? Cheers --TraceyR (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right well per here it says an article needs 3 supports to 0 opposes. A co-ordinator from WP:Aviation will close this review when the time is right, they are also the only one's with the authority to dub it "A-class". Might I recommend that you assign the article under WP:Milihist (this ship was originally part of the army right?), their project has more people and faster response time to reviews. I'll see if I can find another reviewer for you. P.S. Well done on the the Alt texts, but per here you dont need to describe images as B/W. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that yesterday about three supports being recommended. I've suggested to the milhist people that they might take a look - the more the merrier. Thanks. I've removed the b/w stuff too from the alt texts. There's more to this than meets the eye! --TraceyR (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to have another look at this article, very sorry but I have been busy, I thought that I should write something here to indicate that I have not forgotten! I am steering an article through the FAC process at the moment (thanks for support there BTW), have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce Merlin/archive1 for points that have been raised, bearing in mind that some reviewers there might have a minority viewpoint on certain things. Referencing style for web cites was noted (put the domain name in plain text before 'Retrieved'). Alt text I had missed but learnt a lot in the process of adding it, I see that there is alt text here, it might need adjusting, a good way of adding it is to imagine that you are describing the photo to someone over the telephone, you know nothing about the subject, nor do they. You can't use the name 'Patrie' in other words. Back to the references you will see the question 'what makes such and such website' a reliable source? I had to admit that when I looked I had to remove most of them (noting that I did not add them). The moral of this to me is if you want to keep the good stuff don't put an article up for promotion!! It's a wicky-wacky world! Hope to revisit soon to add a proper vote in the positive. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Nimbus, I was not aware you were previously involved in editing this article, Tracey may need a different independent !vote. I also wholeheartedly agree with your last point, the FAC level nitpicking often affects content, I'd personally recommend just capping any articles off a GA. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I have had my 'head on fire' recently with getting the Merlin up to FA (it's over now), I don't think that it would be problem to vote even though I did originally assess the article. I assessed it as start class and got a 'roasting' for not assessing it higher, it was a misunderstanding and quite funny when I look back at it now! Hope some more folk turn up here soon, cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Mea culpa! On reassessing the situation I think it was more of a 'toasting' than a 'roasting' - I was really quite polite and it was a genuine query, after all. Sorry about that though! It won't happen again. Honest. --TraceyR (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, the Internet is a strange place where words or actions can easily be misunderstood, there are times that I have reverted something sure in the knowledge that I was right and then the 'penny has dropped'. I own an absolutely fantastic article at Lockheed NF-104A, it remains a lowly start class, blub!! This actually doesn't bother me at all, some one will find it one day. Anyway, to stay on topic I noticed the no-wikied film link in external links, you should still have the 'External links' header visible as Commons is treated as an external link, just a minor thought. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran the article through this [4] tool, it's not always right but you might like to note what it came up with. I would post the results here but it's not allowed (I got told off for doing it recently!). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki world just gets bigger all the time - thanks for the auto-reviewer link. I've checked through for the units/nbsp issues and found a few, but there are some questions, e.g. when a quotation just mentions e.g. 4,000 feet, should this be expanded to include the metric equivalent, even though it was not part of the quote? Also, since this is about a French aircraft, the metric units should be cited first - does this apply even when the source (UK or USA) only mentions feet/lbs? Perhaps I'd better check the MOS on those points. By the way, the auto-review no longer flags the intro since I split the first para into two!!! --TraceyR (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) No, if a number is in a quote then it stays unconverted, don't think there is a rule about that but that's how it works, original spelling mistakes get left as well although most people quietly straighten them out. I've seen editors correcting grammar in quotes, a no,no. Units, can be a bit of a minefield, consistency is the main aim throughout an article, so in the case of the Patrie it should be metric first even if the source gives it the other way around. There is guidance at WP:MOSNUM but don't look at this for too long!! If you have only Imperial units then conversion is allowed (and encouraged). Glad the tool was useful, only found it myself recently, in time it will be refined and we humans will be taken out of the loop! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment~~ This is a fine article, detailed and well laid out. I took the liberty of making a minor ce or two, but a few other points:
- She was the second Lebaudy airship, and surpassed her predecessor in both size and method of construction - I didn't know you could surpass something in method of construction, can this be clarified or reworded?
- I generally review articles at the MilHist project so forgive me if ACR standards are a bit different here—though if considering this for FAC it needs to be addressed anyway— but there are a number of paragraphs without any citation; this should be rectified.
- Purely cosmetic, but is there a particular reason we need a blank line between Endurance and Ballonet Volume under Specifications? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and comments, Ian. I've removed the extra break, which was there simply to highlight the fact that "Ballonet volume" is not part of the specs template - unnecessarily, of course. The comment about "surpassed ... in construction methods" is quoted from the source (Vivian); I think his point was that the earlier airship (it went though several metamorphoses during its life, so some sources refer to it as two or three different airships) had a triple-layer gasbag, whereas the Patrie and its successor, the République, had four layers. Unfortunately he doesn't elaborate. What do you think would be better: To enclose the sentence in quotation marks, so that it is seen to be the source's opinion, or elaborate about e.g. the construction improvements implemented in the Patrie vis-à-vis the Lebaudy I? I favour the latter, although it means more work!

The quote might work; on the other hand I'd also be happy with something like She was the second Lebaudy airship, surpassing her predecessor in size and improving upon her method of construction - "improving" construction just sounds better to me than "surpassing". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source which lists several improvements over the Lebaudy I, the main one of which I have added under Envelope (the Patrie's had four layers compared with the other's three). The others improvements were (1) the increased volume (2) a more powerful motor (3) improved empennage (4) additional ailerons, finishing with a helpful "etc..."! Since none of these would be covered by Vivian's "method of construction" I'm considering ditching the unspecific Vivian quote and listing the other differences. The trouble there is that the source (a private website) is not as reliable as Vivian (a book)! However all of the items (1) to (4) are available from other sources or obvious from photos (would that be OR?) ... --TraceyR (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Tracey, I'm speaking here as someone steeped in MilHist reviewing standards so I beg the court's indulgence.... ;-) Although I haven't looked at the private website, prima facie it'd be safer at A-Class level to have a little less detail that's from a clearly reliable source than more which is from a private site. As for possible OR in deducing things from photos, even seemingly obvious things, there's a lively discussion going on at the MilHist talk page about that very subject when it comes to listing soldiers' campaign medals which aren't cited in writing somewhere (I must admit to taking a fairly firm line against that). Personally I have no prob with the level of detail in this article as it is so I would stick to what you've gleaned from the book. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the paragraphs without citations; I had not realised that there were so many. It will take some time, but the article will be the better for more citations. Thanks again. --TraceyR (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, Tracey. Don't reckon I've seen any of your work before but if this is any indication I look forward to more...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm pretty well ready to support. The first and third of my points above have been fully actioned, just have a couple of niggling things re. the citations. I bring these up mainly because I notice there's been talk of taking this to MilHist ACR, where it's quite stringent, and you may as well be ready...! I see every paragraph now in the main body has at least one citation, as I requested, however the best thing is to ensure that every paragraph finishes with a citation. For instance, the first two paras in Steering and Propulsion don't do this, and certainly the last clause of all ("lost without a trace") should finish with one; this may mean just moving the citation that's currently sitting earlier in the same sentence. On the other hand, if everything in a paragraph comes from the same source, one citation at the end is sufficient, e.g. the third para in Envelope has two citations to the same source and no others, it'd be fine in this circumstance to just have the one citation to that source appearing at the end of the last sentence, and drop the one in the middle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'll look at these points tomorrow. There's also the "Aftermath" section which is still needed, so it may be a day or so before I can get around to that (life outside WP intervenes!). --TraceyR (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking really good, Tracey. There's just half a para in Steering and Propulsion devoid of citation now - can that be rectified? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Tracey, I'm cool with this now - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good news. The missing www.earlyaviator.com site has been replaced by Early Aeroplanes and Airships; Jean-Pierre Lauwers' collection of images, some of which are referenced in the article, are here. Alice Guy's amazing 1906 film of the Patrie is still not accessible online. --TraceyR (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope that I have addressed all the points raised so far (and a couple more!). I'd appreciate any suggestions for further improvement or (even better!) the stamp of approval for the next level. Thanks for all the comments so far. --TraceyR (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the constructive suggestions and help evidenced above, this article now has three 'supports' and no 'opposes'. I am really grateful for all the comments which have highlighted so many issues which I had overlooked or been unaware of. Some useful tools have also been mentioned.
I note from the procedures that at this stage 'coordinators' can make an article A-class. Does this refer to project members uninvolved with creating and/or modifying the article? Who is permitted to make these changes? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan4314, Born2flie and Ian Rose have all been willing to offer their guidance on getting this article thus far: 3 supports for GA status. Since this is my first time around this loop, I'm not sure about who can take the final step of changing the assessment status of this article; my assumption is that I am probably the one person who can't do it! Would someone point me in the right direction for what I hope is the last yard? Many thanks.--TraceyR (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go for Good Article then you need to formally nominate it at Wikipedia:Good article nominations where it will (in time) be reviewed by an independent editor, The Featured Article process is similar but multiple editors are invited to comment, support or oppose, a member of the FA team then has the last word on promotion or not. A class seems to be rated higher than GA and can be done within the project (I think!) which seems slightly strange to me. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant three supports for "A", not "GA"! Thanks for the response, though. Given the support, can I change the status to "A" myself? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says at the bottom here that a 'coordinator' closes the review, not sure that I am one of those yet! Maybe ask Trevor, I would expect that this article will get promoted when a coordinator looks at the review, just takes time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that and wondered what/who a coordinator is. Presumably a project coordinator? I'll just have to be patient - plenty of other calls on my time at the moment, but having got it so close I'd like to see it happen! Character-building, no doubt, having to wait! Thanks again. --TraceyR (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lost a few inches of fingernail during the Merlin FAC! 'Patience is a virtue' so they say. To go slightly OT I would like to get involved in more assessment tasks as there is a growing backlog across the whole of WP but my priority at the moment is adding content and referencing many aero engine articles (approx 950 articles now). To do an assessment properly and fairly takes time and dedication which I don't feel I can give at the moment. Hang in there! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message at the Aviation talk page to try and get some more eyes for the two review requests above (one of which is mine of course!) and a coord to close/promote this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article looks good. But there is little on why Patrie was built. The lead says it built for the French army, but this is not mentioned after that. Maybe repeat that further down in the article and expand on it or word it differently. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I have been thinking about an "epilogue" paragraph, so perahps a "background" or "intro" paragraph would sandwich it nicely. The success of the predecessor was the reason for the order. During the Patrie's short life it was also successful - I read somewhere that an order for five more was placed. The French got the Republique, the Russians the Ljebed and the Austrians also bought one, all more or less identical to the Patrie, so there's plenty of info that could be added. Watch this space! --TraceyR (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all 'supporters' - perhaps the Patrie will achieve promotion before the first anniversary of its entry for assessment! I have changed the order and headings of two paragraphs in the "Design and deleopment" section to reflect the section introduction. I'm loath to change too much since the casting of the support votes! --TraceyR (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.