Talk:Nord Gerfaut/GA1

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

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 13:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * See below
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I see Hartmann has published on this topic so I am willing to accept the source as minimally reliable. Is "The Galtier Delta Family" actually referenced? If not, it should be moved to further reading.
 * 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The first sentence needs work. It is burdened with too many acronyms and foreign language words upfront. I would suggest omitting the second organization if it wasn't directly involved in the production of the aircraft, and consider whether the full French-language name of SFECMAS is necessary or helpful for the casual reader. Also, this information should be included and cited in the body per MOS:LEADREL: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".
 * Dropped the lengthy French names and reworked the lede.
 * "The Nord 1402 Gerfaut had its origin in a state-sponsored study into delta and swept wings. To provide data for these studies" Study or studies? Which state?
 * "To utilise this data" Shouldn't it be "based on this data"? Presumably the data was gathered to make better aircraft?
 * See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel 66 I do see one issue which is that the first sentence now states: "originally designed and built by It was" I think there are some missing words there. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)