Wikipedia:Peer review/Westland Interceptor/archive1

Westland Interceptor

 * 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 June 2009.
 * 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 June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how to improve the article. Positive and negative comments are welcome.

Thanks, LouriePieterse (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is a good start, it needs a lot of work to be a fully developed article. Here are some suggestions for improvement - I am also reviewing the other Westland aircraft article so some of the comments will be the same for both. 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; 21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead does not adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD. For example, the lead does not clearly identify the time frame of the airplane, and it is not clear to me from the lead (or the rest of the article) if this was a monoplane or biplane - the references to monoplanes outside the lead are unclear - are they about the rise of such aircraft in general or this one in particular?
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way and also make sure that important information from the infobox (like the fact that only one was built) are in the lead too.
 * The article also does not have enough references - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. The journal cited could use cite journal to provide more complete information. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * The word "sadly" here is very POV However, sadly the overall performance and handling during the test flights shown that the aircraft designers failed in reaching the project goal. See WP:NPOV
 * Is there any chance for an image? I think this would qualify under WP:FAIR USE or perhaps the image would be free now since enough years have passed.
 * I would look at some of the similar fighter articles to see ideas for expansion. The details of the specification could be given. Who designed it? Who was the test pilot? What happened to the only model produced?
 * Per WP:See also most links which are already in the article should not be repeated in the See also section.
 * A model article is good for ideas and examples to follow. There are many aircraft Featured Articles at Category:FA-Class aviation articles that seem like they may be good model articles.