Talk:L'Oiseau Blanc/GA1

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

I will be happy to review this article for GA status. H1nkles (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am looking forward to your comments. :) --Elonka 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GAquality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article. H1nkles (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Lead

 * Consider adding summary of the legacy, which you discuss in the article.
 * Delink May 8, it isn't a necessary link for this article. H1nkles (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Elonka 04:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Background

 * No citations in this section. How do you determine that $25,000 in 1920 is the equivalent to $1 Million in 2007?
 * Please clarify the currency in which the prize was offered. Assumption is it was offered in USD but clarification in the lead would be good.  H1nkles (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. And yes, it was US dollars. As for the "equivalence" number, I checked my available sources and can't recall exactly where I found that particular factoid. I've removed it from the article for now, and will re-add it if I run across the source again. --Elonka 04:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding construction

 * You have a lot of facts here with one in-line citation in the first paragraph. Am I to assume all the information in the first paragraph is from that one citation?  I will check the cite during my review.
 * Ah, heh. I actually tend not to put citations in the lead unless there's a conflict, as the citations are usually in the body of the article.  In that particular case though, I'd added the cite to make it easier on DYK reviewers, since that was the factoid used for the DYK blurb.  :) --Elonka 04:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand about citing the lead, I usually tend to avoid it as well for the same reason. This suggestion is under the Construction section rather than the lead.  In reading other reviews by GAC reviewers a common issue among GAC articles is putting one in-line citation at the end of a paragraph chock full of information.  I want to try and remain consistent with their review criteria, which is why I made the suggestion here.  H1nkles (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. Personally, I feel that the current fashion in citations is a bit excessive, as my own preferred style is more to add the references at the bottom of the article, and only add citations to information that is likely to be challenged. But if you, as reviewer, would like more citations, I can definitely do so.  Just let me know what you'd like.  :) --Elonka 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone does it a little differently, I don't like an article with citations on every line either. What I'm looking for is if there is a sentence or two of facts that are found in one source then put in the in-line cite.  If it's the same cite for an entire paragraph then put the cite in after the main facts in the paragraph, just to help the reader know where to look if they are specifically interested in one part of the story.  Does that make sense?  H1nkles (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You wikilink flying ace twice now please delink it in this section. H1nkles (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Elonka 04:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Flight

 * It's ticky tack I know, but you may want to put the ages of the pilots earlier in the article, it doesn't seem to fit well here. Just personal preference.
 * Done. --Elonka 05:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Take out "ponderous", you indicate that it was heavy for a single engine bi-plane, "ponderous" is duplicative.
 * Done. --Elonka 05:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Rumors Circulated" paragraph is one sentence, please either expand or combine with another paragraph.
 * Done. --Elonka 23:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your final sentence about the mainstream hypothesis on the fate of the plane would best be located at the beginning of the mystery section, since that deals more with the theories of the fate of the plane. As it stands, it is a stub paragraph.  H1nkles (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Elonka 23:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Mystery

 * This sentence, "A dozen witnesses in Newfoundland and Maine claimed to have heard the aircraft as it passed, though if these stories were true, they would have meant that the flight was far behind schedule, as they would have been in the 40th hour of flight" is awkward especially the second half. Consider breaking it into two sentences and rewording the second sentence a bit.
 * The first paragraph is uncited, please reference these theories.
 * The 1930 and 1984 paragraphs are one sentence, consider combining them.
 * The Clive Cussler paragraph is also a stub.
 * The 1989 paragraph also has no citations, please reference. H1nkles (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. --Elonka 07:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Legacy

 * The 1967 paragraph and the street name paragraph are stubs and should be combined.
 * You wikilink Newfoundland three times in the article. Twice is sufficient.
 * This sentence, "The opening montage of the 2005 film Sahara, based on Cussler's novel, features a French newspaper article claiming the fictional version of NUMA found the airplane." is a stub paragraph, also the last line doesn't make sense. I would restate it like this, "...a French newspaper article reporting a fictional story of NUMA finding the airplane."  Something to that effect.  H1nkles (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the above, done. --Elonka 23:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Notes

 * Your sources are credible, properly formatted and check out. As stated in the article, there are some unsourced claims that should have citations, those may be already cited in your notes and they just need to be taged with in-line citations.  I usually like to see accessdates within 3-4 months of my review so if you could update those dates that are from May and add accessdates to notes 11 and 12 on Restless Spirits and Sahara (2005) that would be great.


 * You may also want to consider a See Also section and link to the Charles Lindberg article and the Aviation History article. I know they are linked in the body of the article so if you disagree with this suggestion I would understand.  H1nkles (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both done. --Elonka 07:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall review

 * The article is well written, a few prose pot holes but nothing that would disqualify from GA quality.
 * There are quite a few one sentence paragraphs that will need to be either expanded or combined.
 * There are also several stated facts with an in-line citation at the end of the paragraph but nothing w/in the paragraph. Please tag these facts with citations even if the paragraph has the cite at the end.
 * You're photos are very topical and good quality. I'm concerned about the Fair Use rationale on the stamp image.  Per WP:FUG the rationale for use of a non-free image needs to be fairly detailed including what purpose it serves in the article, to what degree could it be replaced by free content, etc.  In reading your rationale it doesn't appear to meet all the criteria put forth in this guideline.  Please read it and if you disagree please advise me of your thoughts so that we can discuss it here.
 * Thanks, I put a lot of effort into tracking down images of the statues, and getting authorization to use them. As for the postage stamp, I'll admit that Fair Use Rationales are not one of my strong points.  I've expanded the existing rationale a bit, though if you'd like more, I'm afraid you'll have to give more specific instructions on exactly what it is that you'd like. --Elonka 05:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your rationale is better, if you seek FA status the reviewers are a lot more stringent on fair use rationale but for this review I think it is fine. Thank you for addressing that.  H1nkles (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, don't get me started on my opinions of FA reviewers, who spend more time complaining about punctuation and citation formatting than they do reviewing actual article content! When I see someone come through and try to fail an article just because some dates are formatted differently than the reviewer's personal preference, it makes my blood boil.  Note I'm not talking about people who make a good faith request, I'm talking about people who will come in and "Strongly oppose" an article for some minor formatting issue.  But that's another conversation.  So far, you've been one of the most courteous and helpful reviewers I've ever dealt with.  A real pleasure, so thank you!  I'll keep working on the other suggestions and keep you posted... --Elonka 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment. As a reviewer and an editor it's always important to see the forest for the trees.  That said I have run into editors who seem to be very defensive when their babies (I mean articles) are critiqued.  You have been professional and quick to make changes.  I have taken the liberty to read your credentials and I do feel a bit foolish giving you suggestions considering the amount of experience and expertise you bring to each article.  That is part of what I enjoy about this community as a whole, the ability for people from all walks of life to value each other's contributions as a whole rather than discount people's efforts because of their perceived lack of experience.  I may be sounding a bit idealistic but that has been my experience thus far with many of Wikipedia's editors, present company included.  H1nkles (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall the article is fine, with a few fixes suggested I think it will be great. At this point I will put it on hold through the weekend for you to make corrections and so that we can discuss my suggestions.  Once you feel as though the article has been edited sufficiently I will read again for final GA determination.  H1nkles (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, all suggestions have been processed. I actually ended up expanding the article quite a bit, so you may wish to re-read it from top to bottom.  If you see anything else that needs fixing, let me know, or of course you are welcome to jump in and tweak things as you see fit, I won't mind.  :)  Thank you again for your time, your thorough review, and especially for your kind and gentle critique, it is much appreciated.  The article is much stronger now, because of your participation. --Elonka 07:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is good, I will pass it with pleasure and I look forward to working with you in the future. H1nkles (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)