Wikipedia:Peer review/Powered hang glider/archive1

Powered hang glider
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I had researched it for a few years now, in addition of my first-hand experience flying and maintaining these powered gliders. The article is not new and has reached maturity. It is stable, free of editing wars or vandalism. It has been read by fellow fliers anf hang gliding instructors from many countries and some have contributed. I believe this is material for Featured Article and being my first article ever, I am following the humble protocol to submit it first to peer review -specially with grammar & spelling- and fine tune it with welcome feedback.

Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments:' An interesting article, nicely illustrated and obviously has had a lot of work done on it. It needs some work to get ready for WP:FAC and to pass that and become FA. here are some suggestions: Hope this helps - while there is a lot of information here, it needs a lot work and polish to get to FA. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to be a summary of the whole article and not contain anything that is not also in the text. I try to mention every section heading in the lead in some way, even if it is only a word or phrase. See WP:LEAD
 * While this is very well illustrated, there are some image issues that will need to be addressed for FAC:
 * Per the WP:MOS, all images should be set as thumb size to allow reader preferences to set the image size.
 * Some of the images are so close together that there are white spaces - it might be better to prune some and/or consider right / left image placement.
 * Looking at a few images on Commons, there is sparse licensing and source information - who made these images?
 * It is generally a good idea to have a model article to follow for ideas, structure, etc. There are several aircraft FAs (Boeing 747, several warplanes) that may offer ideas.
 * Much of the article is unsourced - to get to FA there will need to be at least one reference per paragraph and a ref for any quote, statistic or extraordinary claim. See WP:CITE
 * For example here are two sentences: The reaction of most pilots would be to say that powered microlights (ultralights) developed from hang gliding in the late 1970s, but it was not that simple. In fact, microlights are a rebirth, a return to the love of low-speed flight which the earliest aviators felt so keenly, but which was subsequently lost in the quest for military superiority.[5] - unless you can cite specific pilots who have this reaction, or have quotes that cite this love of low-speed flight, etc. this is problematic. There is a reference here, i.e. [5], but it is an uncited statement about the history of flight.
 * Without references from reliable sources, it can be hard to tell what is not original research
 * The article needs to meet WP:NPOV and maintain a neutral point of view. Much of the quote above shows POV.
 * It also needs to be written so as to avoid "peacock words" - see WP:PEACOCK.
 * Although it does a decent job of avoiding jargon in most places, it has to do so throughout the article, see WP:JARGON. See also WP:PCR on providing context.
 * It may benefit from being split into several subarticles, see WP:Summary style