Talk:Helicopter 66/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 00:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Taking a look at this one. —Ed!(talk) 00:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * What is the helicopter's tail number?
 * Added!


 * History should be fleshed out: if nothing else, history on the unit itself should provide some detail. When was the helicopter assigned there? Where was the unit based for most of its existence? Was it assigned to these ships and missions individually, or were all of the aircraft of the unit moved from ship to ship at the same time?
 * I can't answer all of these questions from the sources available, however, I have added a paragraph on the squadron's history from activation in 1952 to tasking to NASA, and wikilinked to the Squadron Four page.


 * "achieving the status of "one of the most famous, or at least most iconic, helicopters in history".[1][3]" -- Who called it that?
 * Name added!


 * Any information on the pilots who rotated through these missions? Might be good to talk about the group of people who operated the craft during this time.
 * I agree, I'd love to add that, however, only Donald S. Jones seems to have been notable of himself. I've expanded the section though to note that he commanded the 8 and 11 missions and also wikilinked his name in the table.


 * "In the summer of 1975 Helicopter 66 crashed..." Any further details about the date, or the location of the exercise or where it was based at the time? How many people it was carrying? Some background on the kinds of exercises it might have been undergoing seems to be available.
 * working on this


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Each recovery mission needs a reference attached to it.
 * added!


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * One big thing to add: Talk about this helicopter's design and general characteristics. You'll see the way people tend to do this with ships in some of the other articles (One of my examples: Portland-class cruiser has the general information on a helicopter, while USS Portland (CA-33) has an abbreviated look at design and some details about how it differed in that individual ship.) Because I think one of the key things people will be interested in with this article is how this individual helicopter might have been outfitted differently from a standard one. If not, I would say, just run through the general design characteristics of this type of helicopter and say that as far as has been made clear, this helicopter was designed in the standard configuration.
 * added a design section


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Images in article appear to be properly tagged.
 * 1) Other:
 * Dab links, dup links and copyvio detector all seem to return no problems.
 * Reference spotcheck Refs 2, 5 and 9 all check out.

On Hold I think the article can be fleshed out a bit more, but I think it's off to a good start. On hold pending some additional details being added in. —Ed!(talk) 00:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ed! thanks for your very thorough review. I've updated as per above notes, and also took the liberty of creating archival links to all the websites referenced and alt tags to all the images. Let me know if I missed anything or your thoughts. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Passing GA. —Ed!(talk) 00:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Italicization
The italics or non-italics are sharply divided. The title, infobox title, and first mention are italicized. The mentions in the text and captions are not. So one or the other is correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)