Talk:Courtois-Suffit Lescop CSL-1/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 16:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't forget this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't - had some RL issues.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * Spotchecks:
 * "and the aircraft made its first flight in January 1918" is sourced to Green & Swanborough p. 120 which supports the information
 * "It was one of the first aircraft, if not the first, to be fitted with leading-edge flaps." is sourced to Green & Swanborough p. 120 which supports the information but I think it might be a bit too close to the source which says "The C. S. L.1 was, significantly, one of the first (if not the first) aircraft to feature leading-edge wing flaps, these being fitted to the lower mainplanes and elevated or depressed through a limited range of movement." Maybe "It was among the first aircraft to be fitted with leading-edge flaps along the lower mainplanes."?
 * Lead:
 * "It was not put into production." is this supported in the article text? Otherwise, it should have a source
 * Development:
 * Links for Courtois-Suffit and Lescop? Do we know the first name of Lescop?
 * There's very little info on Courtois-Suffit other than he had patents in 1915–1918. And there's nothing available for Lescop other than being a military pilot.
 * "designed the CSL-1 to satisfy a French Military Aviation (Aviation Militaire) requirement for a single-seat fighter issued in 1917" this is unclear - is it a requirement for a fighter to be issued in 1917 or is it a 1917 requirement for a fighter?
 * "with single neatly faired I-shaped" "neatly faired" is what?
 * "cabane struts" is what?
 * "S.A.I.B." is what? Abbreviations should be spelled out at first use.
 * File:Courtois-Suffit Lescop CSL-1.jpg says that only one aircraft was built and that aircraft was scrapped after 1919 - we should probably mention this in the article
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "with single neatly faired I-shaped" "neatly faired" is what?
 * "cabane struts" is what?
 * "S.A.I.B." is what? Abbreviations should be spelled out at first use.
 * File:Courtois-Suffit Lescop CSL-1.jpg says that only one aircraft was built and that aircraft was scrapped after 1919 - we should probably mention this in the article
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)