Talk:ABC Wasp/Peer review

Born2flie

 * Peer review (see here for criteria)

Peer review, as requested on WP:Aviation's Peer review. Conducted on 29 December 2008.
 * 1) Prose
 * a. well written: b. comprehensive:  c. factually accurate:  d. summary style:
 * first sentence contains awkward reference to indirect object, the engineer. Possibly rewrite the sentence to not include the awkward reference to previous employment.
 * short article, closer to Start-Class as it does not adequately cover the development of the engine, such as the impetus for beginning the development and the reasons for ceasing development.
 * rewrite "noteworthiness" out of the article. Article does not need to express noteworthiness or notability. Notability becomes evident with the information in the article and the sources included.
 * 1) References
 * a. use of inline citations: b. reliable sources:  c. No original research:
 * 1) Style
 * a. lead section: b. appropriate structure:  c. conforms to WP:MOS:
 * no lead section, probably due to lack of coverage of subject.
 * using the aircraft template for See also introduces "Comparable aircraft" rather than "Comparable engines".
 * structure used complies with MOS.
 * 1) Controversy
 * a. neutral point of view: b. stable, with no edit wars:
 * 1) Graphics
 * a. quality: b. image licenses:
 * Consider moving the image to the See also section and left-aligning the image to break up the image with the infobox.
 * 1) Quality:
 * Article classification:
 * Start-Class. Not really comprehensive enough to be a B-Class, but it has all the required characteristics. WPAVIATION banner will classify it as a C-Class when evaluated by the B-Class checklist. --Born2flie (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider moving the image to the See also section and left-aligning the image to break up the image with the infobox.
 * 1) Quality:
 * Article classification:
 * Start-Class. Not really comprehensive enough to be a B-Class, but it has all the required characteristics. WPAVIATION banner will classify it as a C-Class when evaluated by the B-Class checklist. --Born2flie (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)