Wikipedia:Peer review/Aerial refueling/archive1

Aerial refueling

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… It is currently rated as a start-class article as I found it, It appears to me to be much much more than this and would like to know if anything should be done before nominating it for a featured article.

Thanks, SyBer WoLff  16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, very good pictures. I think it is not ready for FAC as it needs many more referencews and has some other issues - here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC: Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Language tweak - The procedure allows the receiving aircraft to remain airborne longer and, more important[ly], to extend its range ...
 * Is it "receiving aircraft" (seems better) or "receiver aircraft" - I would pick one and stick with it
 * "carriage" is an uncommon word - the lead should be as accessible as possible
 * Avoid jargon by eliminating or expalining it - what is a "take-off roll" in Alternatively, a shorter take-off roll can be achieved ...?
 * I would not say "see later" - this is the lead, so the whole article is later - the "probe and drogue" system is to be used (see later).
 * The lead should summarize the whole article - my rule of thumb is that any header should be metioned somehow in the lead, but the history is not, as an example
 * Do not use generalities if specifics are given later - for example, why start the history section with Some of the earliest experiments in aerial refueling took place in the 1920s... when two sentences later we read The first mid-air refueling between two planes occurred June 27, 1923, ... and there is a photo of this too. I would start with the "The first..." sentence and use the second phrase on  when it was as simple as two slow-flying aircraft flying in formation, with a hose run down from a hand-held fuel tank on one aircraft and placed into the usual fuel filler of the other. on how it was done following that.
 * Article is under-referenced - this would be a big problem at FAC. For example the first paragraph of History is uncited, as is the whole Operational air refueling section. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. All of the "first ever" statements need cites. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Provide context for the reader - what is the significance of Cobham plc in FRL still exists as part of Cobham plc. See WP:PCR
 * There are several one or two sentence paragraphs - these very short paragraphs stop the flow and make the article choppy and should be combined or expanded if possible.
 * "Tanker aircraft by refueling system" is very list-y. Would it be possible to make it a separate list article - see WP:Summary style. I think as is, the list would also be a potential problem at FAC.
 * Article could use a copyedit

Comments from
 * As above, the article is sorely lacking in references. I echo Ruhrfisch's comments about what needs referencing, it's good advice.
 * What references you have are lacking bibliographical information that is needed per WP:V. The "History of Aviation Part 19 1938" needs a publisher, author, and page number at the very least. I suggest using and the other  templates, which can be found Citation templates.
 * When citing a website, you need to not just put in a bald link to the site, you should format it with a title, and give a publisher and a last access date.
 * I didn't read the prose, just looked at the sourcing as I would have at FAC. Nor did I look at pictures, but I did note that one is up for deletion. 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)