Talk:Supermarine Spitfire/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   In the "Design and development" section, the half of a sentence ending in before any formal report had been issued by the A&AEE; interim reports were later issued on a piecemeal basis. needs a citation.

   The first paragraph in "Airframe" needs a citation.

   In the section on the wing, A dihedral of six degrees was adopted to give increased lateral stability. needs a citation.

   In the same section, Over time, however, these problems were overcome and thousands of these wings, of six basic types, were built. needs a cite as well.

   The first para in "Armament" needs a citation.

   The line about Spitfires having operated against the Japanese during the Darwin raids needs a citation as well.

   In the "Variants" section, the last line in the second paragraph needs a citation (referring to the final armament layout).

   The "Naval variants" section is uncited.

   Still needs a citation for The addition of heavy carrier equipment...culminating in the purpose-built Seafire F/FR Mk 47.

   Significant portions of the "Griffon-engined variants" section are unsourced.

   In the same section, the last para needs a citation at the end.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The lead could be beefed up a bit. For instance, it states that it was built in many variants for many roles; could you add an example or two?

   The Service history portion of this article is quite short. It really needs to go into deeper detail. For instance, during the Battle of Britain, the Spitfires were primarily tasked with fighting off the Bf-109s while the slower Hurricanes attacked the incoming bombers. This isn't mentioned in the article, but it really should be. Something else to think about including are the famous aces that flew the plane.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Can we get the title to the "1969 vintage magazine" for File:Spitfire IIA P7666.jpg?

   For this photo, the link provided states that it came from the "Beehive Hockey Photo Museum", which in turn does not provide the provenance of the image. It either needs to be documented or removed from this article.

   The link provided in this photo does not corroborate the credit given. This needs to be fixed or removed.

   I can't find this photo anywhere on a .mil domain; it needs a better source or it has to go.

   Everything else should be ok.

   I've struck the three images that have been documented as British Crown Copyright. The purported US photo still needs to be addressed though. Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The only really major thing is the lack of detail on the service history. Everything else is pretty minor and should be a snap to fix. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

See my comments on the main talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nimbus

I just ran the article through the auto peer reviewer tool [1] which indicates some problems, while this appears negative some of the problems could be fixed quite easily. Am I in the right place BTW?! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So... is everything done that needs to be in the article? If so then pass it. If not, what's left that needs fixing? I can tweak thing myself if needed, it's been on hold long enough. Wizardman 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for giving me a poke, I've been pretty busy in real life and this had been pushed to the back burner. Everything looks good, so I'll pass it for GA. Excellent work to everyone involved. Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Parsecboy; Nimbus owes you several boxes of jaffa cakes and a ride in the Grace Spitfire. Seriously Well done to all! Minorhistorian (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)