Talk:Platt-LePage XR-1/GA1

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

Reviewer: — Ed! (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Comments
 * 1) "Platt-LePage's submission was judged superior to its competitors" - which of the competitors' models was the XR-1 superior to? And how was it superior? Add a little clarity or links, if possible.
 * ✅ - added a footnote detailing the other submissions; I can't come across exactly how the Army judged the XR-1 superior, just that it did. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "the aircraft was not completed until three months later than the contract schedule" - any idea why this was the case?
 * ✅ - Can't find anything about exactly why there were delays, but I did find that the delays spurred Sikorsky receiving an Army contract, so I've added that. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "With the worst of the bugs believed to be worked out," - calling them 'bugs' seems a little unencyclopedic.
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 20:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "improved helicopters, such as Sikorsky's XR-4, were becoming available" - how was the XR-4 improved over the XR-1?
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Financial figures would be good too, ie cost of the contract or renegotiations, cost of the models, projected production cost etc.
 * ✅ There's contradictorary information in the sources - the Smithsonian says the intial contract was "nearly $500,000", while Francillon's book gives a number just under $200,000 and notes that contract change orders increased the amount. It seems like the Smithsonian number is the final amount (and is likely more accurate), so I've used that. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Pass Has plenty of refs.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass Seems to cover the subject well.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass Four images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold pending changes. It could stand a copy edit but other than that it meets the GA requirements as I see them. — Ed! (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll get to this soon as I can, my internet access is a bit spotty at the moment. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, been busy and had connection problems. Will get to this ASAP. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good. I am now passing the article. Well done! — Ed! (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)