Talk:Airbus Beluga/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this one. Comments/queries to follow. Mark83 (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Kyteto it's been a week, so just checking in to see if you will be able to respond to my review. Thank you. Mark83 (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the delay, I haven't been too well as of late; I'll do what I can to respond. Not sure I'll come up with perfect adjustments to all, but I'm giving it a go right now. Would you like for me to make any replies/comments to specific points I'm having trouble with? Kyteto (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to hear you haven't been well. To take the pressure off - I am on holiday 27 August - 09 September inclusive. We can pick this up again then? And yes, happy to discuss any specific points you wish. Mark83 (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I've been making various changes in line with this feedback; there is one point that stands out to me: I do feel it would be good to maintain some mention of the aircraft's use in humanitarian missions, else readers may be likely to conclude that it was never used in such a context. I did look at some other heavy airlifters to compare for such mentions. I'll try and do some wording cuts nonetheless. Kyteto (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Kyteto would you be able to run through the points above and update them as completed or not please? Otherwise I'll have to check the article again almost line by line.Mark83 (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Ok, I'll do a break-down, I did adjust numerous things to improve the article based on feedback; I may as well highlight where I haven't made much change (and why):


 * "During the 1990s, as a result of reported inquiries to Airbus regarding the type, a niche market for selling Beluga-type aircraft to military customers and freight operators was also examined; but sales were considered 'unlikely' to take place by the late 1990s I haven't found a later source/one that rules this out and I didn't want to extend beyond what I have evidence of.
 * "Airbus previously considered the A330-300 and A340-500, is repetition of the paragraph above." - I haven't adjusted this as it was the only mention of either the A330-300 and/or A340-500; the above sentence mentioned what it actually is based on, the A330-200.

Other than those and the previous comment, I think efforts to address the rest of the points have been made. Let me know if you'd like more detail. Kyteto (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Status?
Nothing has happened here for a month. Can this get wrapped up soon? RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @RoySmith sadly, it doesn't look like this is going anywhere. @Mark83 hasn't edited since the 24th, @Kyteto hasn't since the 6th. I would love to pick up the reviewing, but without the nominator, I can't do anything. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 22:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @The Corvette ZR1  Yeah, it's time to pull the plug; I'll do that in a moment.  Thanks for offering to pick this up. RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm active - not sure what to say - I've taken action on all the points raised, either directly on the article itself or as talking points on this same page - not sure what's left outstanding. This has been protracted, but I'm honestly not sure what to do here at this point besides staring at the article for hours hoping to think up some improvement - nothing's been coming up. Kyteto (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

A few points
 * The protracted nature of this is on both sides - i've done my fair share of waiting for progress.
 * Kyteto hasn't been clear what is actioned and what is not. I have to do a full review again to check all the points.
 * Having said that, it has been a bit too long. Life outside Wikipedia has got in the way. Apologies
 * I will finish my update this week. Mark83 (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC) & edited Mark83 (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mark83 my apologies if this seems harsh, but the time to respond was when I pinged you a week ago. It's unfair to the your fellow editors to just let this drag out so long.  I've already declared this review abandoned and  has volunteered to pick it up, which I assume he will do soon.  If the problem is that  hasn't been responding to the review, then it needs to be closed as a failed nomination, with the possibility of resubmitting later when they have more time to work on it.  Letting it continue to drag out (it's already been over three months) just isn't an option. RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I accept the review has gone on too long. I do not accept you are justified in being annoyed about a lack of reply since the 24th. I have not been on Wikipedia as much recently due to real life commitments. Nevertheless, the offer to wrap this up this week following the prompt was a sincere one to finish up what I had started (which was a time consuming and through review).
 * But thank you @The Corvette ZR1 for picking this up.
 * And thanks @Kyteto for your updates following my review and the totality of your work on this article. Mark83 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mark83 you have my apologies for my report on the 25th October was being insufficiently clear. I consider that all points have been addressed, save for three that I have specifically wrote about. To summarise those three, they are 1. Eliminating the only mention of humanitarian activities was something I wanted to discuss 2. "Airbus previously considered the A330-300 and A340-500, is repetition of the paragraph above." - These were the only mentions of the A330-300 and/or A340-500  3. "During the 1990s, as a result of reported inquiries to Airbus regarding the type, a niche market for selling Beluga-type aircraft to military customers and freight operators was also examined; but sales were considered 'unlikely' to take place by the late 1990s" I haven't found a newer source covering this to update from. Kyteto (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * As per the 25th report, let me know if you'd like more detail/summarising/answer a point or question. Kyteto (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @RoySmith this doesn't seem to be progressing, but you don't seem to mind now? Are you more worried about GA stats than exploring options for seeing GARs progressed? Mark83 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I am up for progressing this, if that counts for anything. Kyteto (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mark83 I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but my only goal here is to get things unstuck. I've been working my way through the long backlog of stalled GA reviews, prodding people (on both sides) to pick up reviews that aren't making any progress and closing out those where I haven't been able to get things moving.  If you guys want to pick this up again and complete the review, I would consider that a good outcome.  But please understand that this has been dragging on for four months, so something really needs to happen soon. RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've received multiple status updates on my talk page but no updates in the last 10 days here - am I missing an update here? There were only three outstanding questions I raised and those points don't seem have been looked at. Kyteto (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)