Talk:Bristol Britannia/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 10:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review the article and post my findings here in the next few days. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 10:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the article is not entirely stable—there have already been 16 edits today—if editing does not slow I will find it difficult to keep up with changes and thus ensure that the article is worthy of GA status.

Anyway, here is my review of the article. Overall it is a well-written, interesting and excellently sourced article that has clearly had a lot of effort put into it. There are several things that need changing, but this is certainly on its way to GA status. Well done to all involved.

Introduction

The note directing users looking for Bristol Britannia (car) is not correct. A template (in this case {{for}}) should be used.

"A British medium-/long-range airliner" Use of slashes is strongly discouraged (see MOS:SLASH). Is it possible to say, for example, "A British medium-to-long-range airliner", or something similar, to avoid using a slash?

The lede itself is one long pararaph. For a long article such as this, it would be advisible to split the lede into two paragraphs and, if possible, expand both paragraphs, since one chunky paragraph is hard on the eye.

"Nevertheless, the Britannia is considered one of the landmarks in turboprop-powered airliner design and was popular with passengers, earning itself the title of "The Whispering Giant" for its quiet, exterior noise and smooth flying, albeit the passenger interior remained less tranquil." A very long sentence, perhaps consider splitting it in two.

"were about to enter service, consequently only 85 Britannias were built before production ended in 1960." Should this be "...enter service, and consequently..."?

Since this is the first time that you mention the United Kingdom and the United States, please write them out rather than calling them the UK and the US.

Design and development

"The Brabazon Committee called for several different aircraft to be developed to specifications composed by the committee for roles felt to fulfill Britain's civilian aviation needs." would sound better as "The Brabazon Committee called for several different aircraft to be developed to specifications they composed for roles felt to fulfill Britain's civilian aviation needs."

"The name: "Britannia" was chosen" would read better as "The name, "Britannia", was chosen" or "The name "Britannia" was chosen"

"The first prototype registered G-ALBO" needs a comma, and you might want to link Aircraft registration.

"the second prototype G-ALRX caused" should read "the second prototype, G-ALRX, caused"

Should "Bristol upgraded the design as a larger transatlantic airliner for BOAC, resulting in the Series 200 and 300, the Britannia 300LR was seen as "eminently suitable" for BOAC's services between London and Sydney." read "Bristol upgraded the design as a larger transatlantic airliner for BOAC, resulting in the Series 200 and 300, and the Britannia 300LR was seen as "eminently suitable" for BOAC's services between London and Sydney."?

"A final unique "one-off" development was the Conroy Skymonster, nicknamed Guppy based on a Canadair CL-44D4 N447T" should be "A final unique "one-off" development was the Conroy Skymonster, nicknamed Guppy, based on a Canadair CL-44D4 N447T"

Variants

This section would defintley look better with images, if there are any available on Commons that are not already used in the article.

Accidents and incidents

Is it me, or is all the first paragraph excluding the first sentence meant to be a bullet point. Its odd describing the deadliest accident in a paragraph, and then going on to describe others in a bulleted list.

Survivors

All of the final three in the list need commas after "England".

Other *Having the See also section using "|" for subheadings, and having the References section using ";" for subheadings is inconsistent, it would be ideal to use the same for both.

*Please put an aviation portal box in the See also section.

Everything fixed except the last two items, I don't know how to format these changes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I've added the portal box, even got it in the correct place eventually! Mjroots (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all points have been addressed. Upon reflection, the last point I made would have no real effect on whether this meets GA status or not, but a matter of the author's preference. Again, very well done to all the authors of this article, it is very interesting and excellently written. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 06:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, although I treated my contributions as a research exercise and I had not been finished doing some preliminary legwork, the final product seems to stand up well. Look at this version and the latest incarnation of the article to see the vast differences in the development of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]