Wikipedia:Peer review/De Havilland Comet/archive1

De Havilland Comet
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has been improved to the level where indepth criticism from other editors is now worthwhile, the subject has already been successfully and extensively overhauled a few months ago and passed a GA Review, and I am encouraged by the comments of others that this now shows potential to become a Featured Article; this round of criticism is a step towards that goal. And, being the first passenger jet aircraft in the world, isn't it worthwhile making sure its quality is up to scratch?

Thanks, Kyteto (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is generally very good, though I have doubts about some of the citations. It's well-written, well-organized, and seems comprehensive to an outsider like me. Most of my comments are related to prose and style issues. A bit of fatigue set in when I got to the lists and tables, and I did not read those as closely as the upper text sections.


 * Repetition in the heads and subheads is best avoided. I can't think of a good substitute for "Comet" in every head and subhead, but "DH 111 Comet Bomber" could become "DH 111 Bomber", and "Civilian operators" and "Military operators" could simply become "Civilian" and "Military". WP:MOSHEAD has the guidelines.


 * WP:MOSBOLD suggests limiting bolding to a few exceptional uses. I would not bold things like Type 106, Comet 1, or Type HS 801 in the main text. You can use ordinary text in some cases and italics for emphasis where needed. Double-bolding in the lower sections does not look good to me, and I don't think it's helpful.


 * A couple of the images overlap sections and displace edit buttons. It's better to rearrange things, if possible, to avoid either of these two layout problems. You might consider merging the "Comet 5 design" subsection with "Comet 4" to create more space for File:Gatwick1976-mrh.jpg. Perhaps File:DH Comet 1 BOAC Heathrow 1953.jpg could be moved up into the bigger "India Court of Inquiry" section.


 * The caption for File:Comet Prototype at Hatfield.jpg gives credit to the Imperial War Museum. Wikipedia image captions do not normally include the credits, although they should be given on the image description page. Ditto for other credit lines in other captions in the article.


 * I think "about" is better than "c." before dates. All readers know the meaning of "about", but not all will recognize "c." I see one of these in the caption for File:Gatwick1976-mrh.jpg and a couple more in captions much further down.


 * A lot of word combinations like DH 106 or Comet 4 that occur throughout the article might get awkwardly separated on computer screens by line-break. The cure is to add a no-break code to hold the parts together. WP:NBSP has details.

Lead
 * I think it would be good to mention in the first sentence or at least early in the lead where the plane was built. There is no hint of the "where" until the RAF is mentioned in the last sentence.


 * "It featured an extremely aerodynamically clean design with its four de Havilland Ghost turbojet engines buried into the wings, a low-noise pressurised cabin, and large windows; for the era, it was an exceptionally comfortable design for passengers and showed signs of being a major success in the first year upon launching." - I'd go a bit easier on the superlatives. Delete "extremely", "exceptionally", and "major"?


 * "However, a few short years after introduction into commercial service" - Delete "short"?


 * "The Comet was extensively redesigned to eliminate this design flaw." - Delete "extensively"?


 * Spell out, link, and abbreviate RAF as Royal Air Force (RAF) on first use?

Development
 * "payload at a cruising speed of 400 mph" - Convert this and other measurements to metric; i.e., 400 mph?


 * "Out of all the Brabazon designs, the DH 106 was seen as the riskiest." - I'm not sure if this means riskiest financially or riskiest structurally (most subject to mechanical failure).


 * "Bishop opted for a more conventional 20˚swept-wing design" - Change to 20-degree? I can't seem to find the relevant guideline, but I think 20˚ will be confusing.


 * "large main wheel units that were replaced by four-wheeled bogies" - Link bogie?

Design
 * "reduced the risk of ingestion damage" - Should "ingestion damage" be briefly explained?


 * "had previously collaborated with on earlier licenced designs" - Is licensed misspelled here, or is licenced correct British English?

Introduction
 * "The passenger experience was relatively unique compared... " - "Unique" can't be relative. Delete "relatively"?

Early accidents and incidents
 * "The crash was attributed to structural failure of the airframe with witnesses observing the wingless Comet on fire plunging into the Indian Ocean." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. I usually find a way to rephrase these constructions. Suggestion: "The crash was attributed to structural failure of the airframe. Witnesses reported seeing the wingless, burning Comet plunge into the Indian Ocean."

India Court of Inquiry
 * "a left hand elevator spar failure" - Perhaps more clear as: "a failure of a left-hand elevator spar"? Or do I misunderstand the meaning?

Abell Committee Court of Inquiry
 * "and 50% of the aircraft systems/equipment had been recovered" - It's generally better to replace the ambiguous front slash with a specific word. I assume "and" would be the word in this case.

D111 Comet Bomber'
 * "Additional fuel tanks carrying 2,400 gallons were built into the fuselage to attain a range of 3,350 miles." - Metric conversions?

Comet 3
 * "engines developing 10,000 lb/st with greater capacity and range" - Could lb/st be made more clear? I'm not sure what the "st" stands for.

References
 * Citation 62 lists geocities.com as the publisher, but the source seems to be a self-published article. What makes this source reliable per WP:RS? Same question for citation 73.


 * The source for citation 132 also appears to be a self-published web site. What makes it reliable?


 * What makes Flikr reliable for supporting the claim that "Lyneham was previously the operational base for all RAF operated Comets"? See citation 110.


 * What make youtube.com a reliable source? See citation 118. How does it support the claim that "The last Comet to fly was Comet 4C Canopus (Serial XS235)... "?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page.Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I only did a spot-check of the citations. Please be sure that these and all others meet WP:RS and actually support the claims they are attached to.