Talk:Project Isinglass/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Nice piece of work, but a couple of significant concerns.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See below re Mach speed
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * See below re infobox image
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I look forward to this reaching GA.
 * See below re infobox image
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I look forward to this reaching GA.

I have two major concerns about this article:
 * 1) The infobox image caption says "An artist's concept of the McDonnell-Douglas IGV, which may have been similar to the Isinglass/Rheinberry aircraft", but there's no source for that similarity in the article.  Given that no images of the design are public, and the retired CIA guy's description in the Day article is "scaled-down Space Shuttle" (which to my eyes the IGV doesn't look much like), I'm not sure that including this image is justified.  More importantly, given this tenuousness, I don't think a fair use claim can be supported.  (By comparison, the B-52/D-21 image is okay, since we know the B-52 launch scheme was part of Isinglass and since the photo is public domain.)
 * 2) The article is saying that the craft was supposed to fly at Mach 22.  So too did the article's DYK hook. But the only source for this, as far as I can tell, is the retired CIA's guy memory in the Day article.  All the contemporaneous sources point to by this article – this sheet and this sheet and the 92-page document posted here – all say Mach 20.  So too does this Aviation Week story used as a source.  So why did you decide to go with the one source for Mach 22 as opposed to the many for Mach 20?

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To answer your concerns: the IGV image was included based on a post on a discussion forum (the SecretProjects.uk forums, which are actually pretty good) that commented on how the IGV, being a McDonnell-Douglas aircraft designed for the same flight domain as ISINGLASS/RHEINBERRY, probably provided hints as to the possible design of the black bird. Although I reckon you're right; I'll zappa the image for now and re-upload it at a later date if I can reliably souce a better connection. As for the speed, I assumed the Day article might be more accurate, but I given the other souces, I'll change that to "Mach 20+". Thanks for the review!- The Bushranger One ping only 07:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel pretty strongly that we should go with Mach 20 as the speed, and have changed the article accordingly. The retired CIA guy misremembered the engine number in the article, so he could have easily misremembered the speed.  But I've added a footnote discussing the discrepancy, so that it's out there for the reader to see.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to raise a small issue I have with the categorisation of this article. The article is in the categories Reusable launch systems, Air launch to orbit, Cancelled spacecraft, and Spaceplanes, however the article does not mention spaceflight at all (although it is implied somewhat by the use of the term "suborbital"). The CIA document (reference no.5) suggests that the maximum altitude that the aircraft could reach is "200,000 feet", which is some 40 kilometres below the edge of space. I therefore feel that the use of the term "sub-orbital" within the article is misleading, and that the categories need to be checked. -- G W … 12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for spotting this!! It isn't just the categorizations, the term 'suborbital' was used several times in the article as well.  Per Sub-orbital spaceflight, an altitude of 100 km is required, or possibly 80 km; at 60 km, Isinglass clearly doesn't qualify.  The only thing a source says that I can find, is the retired CIA guy saying 'near orbital speed' (Mach 25 is orbital speed in atmosphere, I think), nothing is said about trajectory.  I've thus reworked the article to remove any mention of 'suborbital' and to remove most of the categories you called out.  I've also removed Category:UAVs and drones of the United States, which was clearly wrong since this was intended to be a manned craft.  I do have questions about two remaining categories.  Category:Reusable launch systems might be justified, because one of the advantages of the Isinglass approach compared to satellites was reusability.  But I guess the category description limits this to spaceflight systems?  And is Category:United States military reconnaissance aircraft 1960-1969 really justified?  All of those other aircraft were actually built, if even only to prototype/test-flight stage.  Should aircraft abandoned while still in the design stage be included in a category like that?   Wasted Time R (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. I think the definition of "launch system" in that context implies "space launch system". -- G W … 14:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've removed the Reusable launch systems nav template that was generating it. I've also removed the Aviation lists nav template, which seems misplaced to me since this isn't a list article named in the template (although I see that some aircraft articles have them, some don't). Wasted Time R (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhh. Sorry, I completely forgot to change the categories when I rewrote the article! Categories are now all fixed up, I hope. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've made a few additional edits to the article and I think things are good now. Am passing the GA. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)