Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arado E.381/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011.

Arado E.381

 * Nominator(s): Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 02:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel that it meets the citeria for featured articles, and because I have resolved all the issues raised in previous WikiProject A-class reviews and the previous featured article candidacy. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 02:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Former FAC here Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 02:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources Images
 * Provide complete page range for Albrecht in its bibliography entry
 * Done
 * Spell out "Publishing" in MBI
 * Done
 * UK instead of England
 * Done
 * File:Arado_234%2B381_parasite_aircraft.jpg - any further information on copyright status? Source link does not discuss author or copyright holder
 * Well, that's where it came from, if they don't have anything, don't ask me for anything.
 * File:Arado_E.381_I_3d.svg and File:Arado_E.381_I_3v.svg - are these drawings based on existing images or sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Common sense and I agree that they are based on factual diagrams and drawings, as I saw something similar at http://www.luft46.com and one of the sources. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 06:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey WikiCopter, just letting you know I removed the templates you added above - per the instructions at the top of the FAC page, those shouldn't be used here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support per standard disclaimer, after giving Wikicopter the stink-eye in the first FAC. I reviewed this at the A-class review, and there's only been one edit since then. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No thanks for the stink-eye earlier (though it probably was justified). I didn't edit since the ACR since I didn't think I needed to do much. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 06:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work you're doing responding to concerns. I have been weakly active the last week, I hope to speed up this week. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 21:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments –
 * It would be better for the first block of references in the article to be in numerical order, unless there's a special reason why they are in that order.
 * Please clarify. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 04:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I got that one. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Development: In the first paragraph of the section, I see no need to have so many cites to the same source. You have five cites, all to reference 4, which strikes me as a bit of overkill. You could get away with just three: the one at the end of the paragraph and the two directly after the quotes.
 * Agreed. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 04:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First "a" should be removed from "with armament and a with a Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine for power."
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Variants: Why are the full plane names bolded here and in the last section? Feels like bolding should be limited to the one section.
 * Those sections seem like they should be their own page, and the first instance of the subject of the page should be bolded. In fact, if I ever get enough information to split those articles off, I will do so. However, if you don't like it, you can remove the bolding. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I got that one. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "The pilot would lie in in a prone position...". Remove second "in".
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the bibliography, check the page range of the Ulrich Albrecht piece. There might be a number missing from the second figure.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 04:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments
 * I would suggest expanding the lead with a sentence or two definition of parasite aircraft and in the development section summarize the thinking behind parasite aircraft as an implementation of the small, high g-force little fighter; obviously the reader could click the wiki link but its kind of a strange (IMHO dumb) concept and the article doesn't have a length problem. Kirk (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how that would be incorporated... do you mind doing it yourself? FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 02:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us a little more about what you want, Kirk? - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; In the lead, something like 'A parasite aircraft was a fighter aircraft carried by a larger aircraft, almost always a bomber, and was generally used to protect a bomber formation from fighter attacks and was preferred to a separate fighter formation because of X' I don'know the answer to X.
 * Somewhere in the article, explain they were first used with Zepplins and expand on X. Also, someone thought this was a good use of scarce resources: why?
 * More on this - my scarce resource comment is something I gathered from this statement in the lead section: ...eventually abandoned because of a shortage of Ar 234 mother ships and a lack of interest from the Ministry of Aviation. and those statements aren't supported in the body anywhere which is a problem. Also, the lead mentions twice the project was cancelled. Kirk (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I also don't understand why the Arado Ar 234 was being used for this purpose; the article explains the bomber interception mission but the original idea of parasite fighters was for protecting bombers and the Arado Ar 234 was too fast to be intercepted by fighter aircraft, and weren't being flown in formations so why did they need parasite fighters? Or was this only to intercept bomber formations so in which case why use expensive Arado AR 234s? Hopefully this helps. Kirk (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Time is tight, hopefully Wikicopter can look into this. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, guys. Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. I would have replied on Wednesday, except some people (privacy refuses to let me disclose their identities) shut off the computer as I was about to submit. Afterwards, I went to Spokane, Washington and Couer d'Alene, Idaho. In fact, I'm still here. Here in Eastern Washington, I'll have relatively limited access to the internet, so excuse me if I don't get back for a week (plans to get back by the end of the next week).
 * AHEM. Now on to the FAC buisness...
 * X is expanded, please review. I don't remember that the Zepplins were used with this aircraft. Where are these aircraft mentioned as a good use of scarce German resources? To understand why the Germans used Ar 234s as the launch aircraft, go ask the Germans. The sources I used do not mention why. Yes, these aircraft were used to shoot down the enemy bombers, not the enemy fighters attacking their home plane. Sorry if I sound a little confusing, but I have limited time and have to run through all of the GA reviews I'm doing. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 04:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I crossed off the things I had above with the exception of the why part, which I expanded to address your concerns.Kirk (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If the parasite aircraft article was better I wouldn't have had as much problem with your limited description - this aircraft was more of a parasite interceptor fighter instead of just 'fighter'; the role being intercepting bombers instead of fighters attacking fighters attacking a bomber formation but I doubt your sources made this distinction. Overall, good work!Kirk (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead is balanced. It's not often that I see one-paragraph leads, but I think in this case it works just fine. Thanks for the good work and speedy responses! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead should, at the very least, mention the fact that the Arado E.381 came in three different flavors.
 * "Had the Arado E.381 been completed it would have been carried aloft by and launched from an Arado Ar 234 carrier aircraft to attack Allied aircraft, but the development was canceled." This leaves the reader wondering why the project was cancelled, a question that isn't answered until the end of the second paragraph. I suggest rearranging the lead material to inform the reader of the reasons for cancellation shortly after this sentence.
 * I think the most interesting/unusual feature of this design was the prone orientation of the pilot. This should definitely be mentioned in the lead.
 * Great suggestions. I tackled two of them with this edit.  For your middle point, I need to see how Wikicopter responds to Kirk's points. WC, as you know we've got a lot of German-speakers in the project with access to German sources, you might want to ask around. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To Kirk and Cryptic: Fixed; I also tweaked some awkward wording. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 20:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now on comprehensiveness grounds and lead clarity. I know very little about airplanes, and what I know about WWII details came mostly from other FAs, which may make me a good person to review this article.
 * Lead issues
 * I got lost on the second sentence of the lead. Had to reread that a few times to make it gel in my brain.   I would recommend reorganizing this a bit.  I'd mention it's cancellation first and then go into the would have beens...
 * I assume the comparison to the Messerschmitt Bf109 means something....because I have no idea what that type of aircraft is or why we'd compare its crosssesction. Is the Bf109 the biggest?  the average?
 * Might be important to have the info about 3 possible designs at the beginning of the lead and not the end.
 * Above all done.
 * " Luftwaffe's concept of "gaining a tactical advantage by placing excessive stress on the man in the cockpit"" - huh? Why was placing excessive stress on someone a tactical advantage?  Can this be fleshed out a little more?
 * Rennenberg and Walker says so. Argue with them.
 * Is there any information on why Arado and the others designed these. Did the Luftwaffe solicit them specifically?  Was there a general call for a specific type of aircraft and Arado decided to participate?  Did Arado already have a history of developing new planes for the Luftwaffe?
 * Sources on the way. Not sure.
 * Were parasite fighters common? Was this a new concept?
 * New concept. Clarified.
 * How many rounds of ammo was normal to carry? I see the "only" 45 and wondered.
 * Thousands. 60 could have been sent on its way to the enemy in a second or two.
 * Was the design not completed, or was the design not implemented? If they weren't completed, do we know what wasn't done?
 * I don't get your concern.
 * Were the other companies also designing parasites for the Ar 234s?
 * Not sure. Is this important, or just curiousity?
 * What was supposed to be done with the aircraft - and the pilot - when the plane landed?!?
 * Glide down, reuse (what else? Germany is strapped for resources, reuse is best).
 * Was there a height/weight requirement for the pilots? Since the bulges were located in specific spots, I wondered if there had been thought to how big the pilot would have to be.
 * No info.
 * Did the mark 3 have a hatch on the side and on the top? That's how i interpreted this, but that seemed excessive
 * I guess so. I'm not sure. Sources are on the way as above.
 * In the Mark II section, the fuselage is given in standard units first; everywhere else it's metric first
 * That's how it was given in the sources.
 * Did the process get so far as to let Arado eliminate some of the other competitors? Did they get close to being chosen as the final provider, or did the process not get that far?
 * It wasn't a competition.
 * What happened, if anything, after the project was cancelled?  Were the designs just shelved?  Was any part of this used in other aircraft?  Was there anything revolutionary about the design that was carried forward elsewhere? Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply shelved. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 00:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry to come to be a Jonny-come-lately, but I don't think this is quite the finished article yet. There appear to be some gaps/inconsistencies in the narrative, and the prose needs work in a few places. Some examples: Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We're told in the Development section that the aircraft had room for "only forty-five 30 mm (1.2 in) rounds" (why "only"?), yet in the very next section that's apparently gone up to 60 rounds.
 * Apparently during Dank's work with the prose, he forgot to mention that one source says 45, another says 60. Fixed. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 23:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Mark II had similar features with the exception of having a larger overall size and smaller fins." Similar features to what? The Mark I? I'm not overly fond of "with the exception of" either.
 * Sorry I'm getting frustrated, but two late opposes can be draining... I noted that it is similar to the Mark I. I don't know why you don't like "with the exception of." What else could we say?
 * Your frustration is understandable. But my concern is with the quality of the article, and whether I believe it meets the FA criteria; the sentence is awkward. What about something like "The Mark II was similar to the Mark I, except for being larger and having smaller fins". (You don't "have" a size, you are a size.) Malleus Fatuorum 04:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "As pilots could only enter from a hatch above the cockpit, the pilot would have had to enter the E.381 before it could be attached to the carrier Ar 234C and had no way to escape in case of an emergency." Presumably this is saying that the pilot had no means of escape while the aircraft was attached to its mother ship? But what about when it was in free flight? Could the pilot escape then? If not, then to suggest that the reason the pilot couldn't escape was because of the attachment to the carrier isn't correct.
 * Well, if that's what my sources say, what can I say? It doesn't say anything about free flight or gliding. I could assume that the aircraft could not be evacuated only when it was attached, but would reviewers allow that?
 * My point is that your ordering of the facts implies that pilots had no means of escape because the aircraft was mounted underneath its mother ship, but that's clearly not the case once it's in free flight. Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Arado E.381/II section is written very choppily.
 * Please expand.
 * It's a sequence of short sentences without any flow. Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The aircraft's straight wings had a blister for a single MK 108 30 mm (1.2 in) cannon and 60[8] rounds." Why is the citation after "60" rather than at the end of the sentence? It's also rather unclear. The wings (plural) had a blister (singular)?
 * Blister underneath wings underneath fuselage. Cite fixed.
 * "... the fuselage deepened in the form of a hump which extended to the tail, which housed a single MK 108 cannon ...". Awkward.
 * Fixed.

Comments—I have no knowledge of the subject matter, but my instincts say "lean oppose" because of the lack of polish, and concerns about comprehensiveness. I hadn't read the comments above before reviewing, so please forgive if I'm repeating. Sasata (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "…designed by Arado Flugzeugwerke in December 1944" the main article text does not mention when it was designed
 * "Each of the three proposed designs" what 3 designs? There's not enough context yet for this to be in the second sentence of the lead.
 * link Allied
 * "It was designed with a rocket engine to quickly close and fire on American and British bombers." I didn't know one could use a rocket engine to make designs. Or, (in an alternate interpretation), I was unaware that rocket engines could be used to "Close and fire" at enemies. Also, why is this sentence in the lead thrice reffed? Is it not cited in the article?
 * "… approximately a quarter of the cross section of the Messerschmitt Bf 109." What's the relevance of the comparison to this particular airplane?
 * link fuselage (earlier), point blank range
 * "According to their "specific design philosophy"" why do these three words need to be quoted?
 * "This is because the aircraft was cancelled, due to a lack of funds, mother aircraft Ar 234s and a lack of interest by the Ministry of Aviation[1][2][2][7][8]" clunky and confusing sentence; no fullstop at the end; ref 2 is cited twice
 * inconsistent display of units: "30 mm (1.2 in) rounds" vs. later "5-millimeter (0.20 in)"
 * what's a blister?
 * "… and 60 (other writers say 45) rounds[4][6]." discrepancy in # of rounds has already been mentioned; put punctuation before citations
 * why are the specs for only the E.381/I given? How about a comparative table showing the differences between the three versions? (as in the Spanish Wiki)
 * for consistency, should specify the publication states for Albrecht (2002) and Green (1971)
 * fix the doublestop at the end of Ford (2000)
 * why doesn't this article have the longitudinal section diagram shown in the Spanish Wiki article?
 * the Spanish version of the article gives some interesting data about resources needed for production that isn't included here
 * aren't there any German-language sources which have more information?


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.