Talk:Supermarine S.6/GA1

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

Nominator:

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 12:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This looks one of a series of submissions.by Amitchell125 of aircraft designed by R.J. Mitchell for Supermarine Aircraft. I look forward to reviewing it shortly. simongraham (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * The article is of reasonable length, with 1,171 words of readable prose.
 * The lead looks of an appropriate length at 234 words. It could be worth putting the four paragraphs together into one or two to make it easier to read on mobile devices as they are all quite short. ✅ Done. AM
 * 64.7% of authorship is by Amitchell125 with another 39 other contributors.
 * It is currently assessed as a B class article.

Assessment
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;
 * Add "the" before "aerodynamic qualities of the aircraft". ✅ Done. AM
 * Remove comma after "N248 remained as part of the team". ✅ Done. AM
 * Reword "N248 was used in the British biographical film about Mitchell, The First of the Few (1942)" to avoid the bracket (e.g. "in the 1942 British biographical film"). ✅ Done. AM
 * I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar issues.
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * The layout is consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style, including a nice infobox.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * A reference section is included, with sources listed.
 * The specification is from page 203 of Andrews & Morgan 1981. The remainder of the referenced section (from page 173) seems to be unused. The index of the book lists multiple entries for S.6 and S6A, including pages 196–199. I suggest a review may be useful. ✅ Done. AM
 * Is there a reason that multiple ISBN formats are used? ✅ Already sorted? AM
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * References seem credible.
 * Spot check confirms James 1981 and Glancey 2020 are relevant and discuss the topic (although it is not possible to check the pagination for the latter as the e-book has no page numbers).
 * WP:AGF for the offline sources.
 * it contains no original research;
 * All statements are referenced.
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * Earwig gives a 11.5% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is unlikely. The highest match is with the book titles of a book that is in the references.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * Although it generally remains focused, it also mentions the S,6B.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * The anecdote in James 1981 about the Rolls Royce engineers in the pub fixing of the engine is well known and I think worth including. There may be another version of it in Eves & Coombs 2001 if you want to read that as well. ✅ Done. AM
 * That is nicely done. I think this could be a good WP:DYK. simongraham (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * The text seems clear and neutral.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * 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;
 * The infobox and other image have relevant PD or CC licenses.
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * All images either show the aircraft.

Excellent work. Please take a look at more comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review so far, above comments now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That looks very good to me. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass  simongraham (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)