Talk:Airbus A320 family/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Usernamen1 (talk · contribs) 05:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not formally reviewing the article at this point but make the following comments. These points are made from the standpoint of an informed reader, not as an experienced GA editor.

1. Air Inter photo makes more sense to be located near the text where the A320-100 is described.

2. photo of double bogie Indian Airlines A320 is desirable.

3. Airbus A320s sold to Chinese airlines scheduled for delivery between 2009 and 2012 are being assembled in Tianjin, China.[49] is in the present tense but a reference should be located to allow a past tense to be used. May be difficult to find.

4. A section on where these planes are made would be useful. I do not know the answer. Before, I thought the A320 was assembled in Toulouse and the A319 and A321 were in Hamburg but are they now jumbled and made in both places. Also A318's info would be useful to the reader.

5. Deliveries in chronological order, not reverse order is preferred by the non-aviation reader.

6. Should confirm that "family" is the typical term and not series or other word.

7. Use of the word "Mobile, Alabama" makes the article look American-centric because of the lack of country mention.

8. What is so special about this plane. It might be the side stick controllers. Or maybe that the computer will prevent an unstable maneuver, unlike Boeings.

9. There may be a brief section on the A320neo rather than relying solely on a redirect.

10. Optional, but of possible interest to the readers are the routes that push the limits of the airplane. It is used transatlantic by Air Canada and LCY-SNN-JFK.

11. Someone should get a hold of the Norris and Wagner book to check on the article. Either that or the editors who used it should vouch for the lack of copyright violations. That book is used extensively for this article

Good luck. Some of these points may prove very difficult to meet so a discussion could take place to consider not considering some of them after a while Usernamen1 (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Usernamen1, please read the GAN instructions page. If you aren't going to do a full review of the article, you should not be opening a review page as you've just done. Because you have done so, you are the reviewer of record, and should review based on the actual GA criteria.


 * If you don't wish to do a full review of a nomination but wish to make comments, there are two paths. The first is to post to the article talk page basically what you've just posted here. (It could be copied over if you'd like.) The nominator should see them there, and can edit the article accordingly while waiting for a willing reviewer to show up. The second is to wait until a reviewer opens a review and then post your comments to the review at that time.


 * Please let me know what you'd like to do at this point. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant but willing to be the reviewer. If so, I will attempt to do a faithful and thorough job. Someone, even BlueMoonset, should ask me and I will do it. Usernamen1 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Usernamen1, thank you for the offer, but I will not be asking you to be the reviewer. I hadn't realized how new you were to Wikipedia. GA reviewers should have significant experience of Wikipedia and of article editing in particular. You opened this review on your sixth day editing on the site, which is far too soon. Please give it another few months and get a sense of how the GA nomination and review process works—perhaps you could work on an article and get it to the point that it can be nominated for GA—and then see if you want to give a GA review a try. At this point, however, it would be premature to do a review. Instead, I will be putting this nomination back into the pool of unreviewed nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note for reviewer- I have just done the copyvio search on this article, and it says the lead section was copied from a YouTube video. This appears to be the other way round. The YouTube video has the text of the lead paragraph in the video description and appears to be cut and pasted from here, as the video was published in February this year, and the lead section was written before then. Please take this into account.Thank you Class455 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am so sorry for confusing the process by adding comments. I am afraid that no reviewer will step forward because of that. Because of that, I will reluctantly attempt to do the GA review until a regular comes by.

'''The disqualifying criteria are: What cannot be a good article?''' Stand-alone lists, portals, sounds, and images: these items should be nominated for featured list, featured portal, featured sound, and featured picture status, respectively. Disambiguation pages and stubs: these pages cannot meet the criteria. Featured articles: a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article. Accordingly, demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality.


 * I certify that, based on my review, the following disqualifying criteria are not met thus concluding that no disqualifying criteria exists for this candidate article. Usernamen1 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Immediate failures An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as quick failing)[2] if, prior to the review:

1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria.

2. It contains copyright infringements.

3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include ...

4. The article is not stable due to edit warring on the page.


 * I certify, based on my review, that #3 or #4 criteria are met. I have not done a review of #1 yet and do not see gross violations of #2 but believe that this criteria should be further considered. Usernamen1 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Six criteria the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[3]
 * Well written:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[5] all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[6] it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
 * Verifiable with no original research:[4]

it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[7] and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Broad in its coverage:


 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[8]

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[10]
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images:[9]


 * I certify, based on my review, that 2 of the 6 criteria meet the requirements and have been marked as . I am optimistic that the other criteria have been met or almost met but would need further review to make such certification. Usernamen1 (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)