Talk:Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sources?

147.10.19.126 09:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

First Metro into airline service

I changed the first airline from Air Wisconsin to Commuter Airlines. The article "Final Metro Delivery" in Airways magazine Issue 64 states that the first airline to take delivery of a Metro was Commuter Airlines in January 1973. I found a web page with Air Wisconsin's fleet list (http://www.geocities.com/Aeromoe/fleets/airwisc.html), which states their first Metro entered service in April that year. YSSYguy 11:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Article review

I noticed that this article has been nominated for an 'A' class review but is not yet a Good article. I have pasted the GA criteria below where editors can add comments. Nimbus227 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
    (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  • Comment I believe the lead section is too short (2-3 paras?) and is unreferenced (this was pointed out to me nominating another article for GA, which failed). On structure there are a lot of bolded types in the development section where perhaps it would be clearer if this info was moved into variants. Nimbus227 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
    (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[2]
    (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
    (c) contains no original research.
  2. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
    (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
  1. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  •  Done Appears entirely neutral to me. Nimbus227 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.[4]
  •  Done Article is stable. Nimbus227 (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.[5] In this respect:
    (a) all images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for any non-free content; and
    (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
  •  Done All images checked. Nimbus227 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note that this is just an informal check list and not a GA nomination but if it passes this then who can argue?! Nimbus227 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added the similar aircraft you mentioned, as well as the Becch 1900. I agree there is too much bolding, a lot of the info in operational history actually belongs in the Variants section. I more para for the intro would be good too. After I, or someone fixes this I'd put it up for GA. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ It is strongly recommended that the entire Manual of Style is followed, at least in general terms, but this is not a requirement for Good articles.
  2. ^ a b Where in-line citations are provided, they should give proper attribution using either Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the Scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed.
  4. ^ Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then they should be used.

Accidents and incidents

I've reverted the removal of the BinAir accident. While not notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article, the accident is the first for BinAir. It is mentioned under the airline and airport articles, so it doesn't make sense not to mention it under the aircraft type too. The collapse of the undercarriage puts this firmly in the "accident" category. JACDEC are reporting that the damage may be substantial. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree. While it deserves a mention in the airline article, I think it is a bit of a stretch to mention it here. Neither of us can assess the damage from a grainy photo, but I would be surprised if it was substantially damaged. In my experience aircraft that suffer landing gear collapses are flying again in a short time. YSSYguy (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames

This aircraft is known as "The Tube", "Pencil", and "Lawn Dart". Any way we can work that into the article without drawing the attention of the Wikipedia police? Greg Salter (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No - you will need a reliable reference to the names and you will need to convince other users that they are notable to the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Milb1. "Lawn dart" is so common that it's pretty much a synonym for any skinny or pointy aircraft, which means it's lost almost all uniqueness or notability. - BilCat (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I meant that "Lawn dart" is a nickname commonly used for any thin or pointy aircraft, especially the F-1-4 and F-16, not the Metroliner specifically. - BilCat (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
In addition these names are somewhat local in use; I have never heard or seen "Lawn Dart" except in this article, while in Oz the other nicknames are "Flying Pencil", "Texas Tube" and "San Antonio Cigar"; however I have never seen these terms in print either. YSSYguy (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Spit and polish, measurements

Cleaned up the first reference to the weight limit of the plane by addeding the proper names of the measurement units (imperial and SI) along with links to the relevant wikipedia entries, -Ref —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.53.54 (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fairchild_Swearingen_Metroliner/Archive_1&oldid=1022929791"