Talk:Concorde/GA1

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

Reviewer: –Grondemar 04:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Will aim to complete the review in the next couple of days. –Grondemar 04:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's my review. Sorry for taking so long.


 * The lead needs to be expanded and rewritten to be a better summary of the article. See WP:LEAD for guidance.
 * In the Development section: "In the late 1950s, the United Kingdom, France, United States and Soviet Union were considering developing supersonic transport." You should explain why; this is important background information.
 * Why is http://www.rpec.co.uk/engineerswalk/ar_walk.html a reliable source?
 * There are many, many parts of the article that are uncited. I added  tags where I felt a citation was appropriate.  The Flight characteristics section has only one citation total.
 * It would be nice to remove the many (statements in parentheses) and incorporate them into the text; the general features section has a especially large number of them.
 * File:Concorde under Verrazano Bridge.jpg: The licensing statement says: This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright notice "© 2004 Metropolitan Transportation Authority" is included. However, the link provided to substantiate the copyright assertion is dead.  I think this needs to go through WP:OTRS to verify the MTA's permission.

Due to the large number of needed citations, I don't think this article can be improved to meet the GA criteria within the normal seven-day hold period. Therefore, I am failing the article at this time. It can be resubmitted when the above issues are addressed.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Thanks. –Grondemar 06:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)