Talk:Nord 1500 Griffon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting article. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Review
The article is stable, with the main contributors Sturmvogel 66, who authored 42%, Petebutt, who authored 21% and Kyteto, who authored 19%. The article was rated B class in December 2013 but has been subsequently developed, with particularly high activity in November 2020 and February 2021. The article is generally well written in an accessible style.


 * The article is illustrated with relevant images that are marked as licensed in the public domain.


 * The references should be consistent and follow the style of the first major contributor unless there is a consensus otherwise. The first inline citation was added on 11 May 2010 by Nimbus227 in the form of a footnote citation with author, year and page, and then a separate full bibliographic reference. This is currently the same for the majority of references, but there are some citations that are not. For example "Buttler & Delezenne, pp. 162–163; Carbonel, p. 57" should be "Buttler & Delezenne 2010, pp. 162–163; Carbonel 2016, p. 57", "Hartman, p. 12" should be "Hartman 2007, p. 12", "Hartmann, p. 14" should be "Hartmann 2007, p. 14", "Carbonel, pp. 93–94" should be "Carbonel 2016, pp. 93–94".
 * Good catch


 * The speed is given in Mach numbers. While Mach number is linked in the lead, I think it would be useful to also wikilink the first mention in the text. I suggest including the speed in km/h and mph as Mach numbers do not seem to be widely used as a sole measure of speed in the literature.
 * If it were a longer article, relinking Mach number might be worthwhile, but I disagree for something this short. We're expressly forbidden to convert Mach numbers into mph/kmh as the Mach number varies by temperature and altitude. One conventional speed figure is given in the article, so readers will have some idea of what the aircraft could do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. WP:MACH says "Mach numbers should never be calculated by editors from maximum speeds" rather than converse, but that is not a hill I wish to die on. simongraham (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooops.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * The performance data looks sparse. Winchester's X-Planes and Prototypes and Concept Aircraft, both of which are on archive.org, may be able to add more.
 * Added some data from Concept Aircraft, but his figure for top speed is below those that the aircraft demonstrated. What should I do about this? Use the record speeds instead?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question. The article on North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which is a GA on another aircraft that remained experimental, and the GA Lockheed F-104 Starfighter seem to also have different maximum speeds listed to the speed records in the narrative. In comparison, I think it would be good to be consistent across the article and put the speed record figure. simongraham (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be interesting to include content from Noël Daum's lecture "The Griffon Aircraft and the Future of the Turbo-Ram-Jet Combination in the Propulsion of Supersonic Aeroplanes" given to the Royal Aeonautical Society on 12 March 1959. It is available in The Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society volume 63 (582). There is also an interesting article by David A. Anderson in Aviation Week in 1958, which is also on archive.org, which tells some more of the aeroplane's saga.
 * Got links? I can't find either, although I don't use archive.org very much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anderson is here while I found this link to Daum using a search engine while the RAeS e-library is also useful. DownMagz and World of Magazine may also be good sources to look at for magazines. simongraham (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Assessment
There has been some really good work done here to resolve the minor issues identified and the article meets the six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and words to watch.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged.
 * It contains no original research.
 * It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * It addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * iI stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * Images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
 * Images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Congratulations, Sturmvogel 66. This is another of your articles that meets the criteria to be a Good Article.
 * Pass/Fail: Pass  simongraham (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: Pass  simongraham (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)