Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/CFM International CFM56


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Promoted -''' MilborneOne (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

CFM International CFM56
I am nominating this article for A-class, as it has recently undergone a massive revamp. A detailed development and design section has been added, and the article recently underwent a detailed peer review. The CFM56 is one of the most widely used jet engines in the world, and it would be a good turbine representative for aero-engines. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * Compressor links to a disambiguation page.
 * Done! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   15:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The alt text for the images is too detailed I believe, the way I understand it is that you are describing the image over the telephone and you and the person at the other end knows nothing at all about the subject(s), the KC-135 image would be something like 'a grey colored, four-engined jet aircraft is flying from right to left'. The Nixon image would be something like 'A group of suited men and military officers stand in front of three flags, two men are waving'. It's difficult but it can be done.
 * I have gone back through the alt text, removing proper names and unneeded details. I think these comply with WP:ALT now, but another opinion is always useful! -SidewinderX (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost, the infobox image still has CFM56 in it, the 737 inlet has Boeing 737 in it and other images have technical terms like 'compressor, booster, turbine and fan case etc. (remember this is my wife describing the images to her sister on the telephone!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch on the lead image and the nacelle image! I've fixed those now. I'm not exactly sure what to do museum image. In my mind, "blade" is the descriptive, over-the-phone word, and "compressor" or "turbine" is just the modifier. I could say "there are three sets of blades from left to right", but I feel like specifying which blades they are adds to the description. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All external links including the references are currently live, I have not checked their reliability as sources.
 * The auto peer reviewer tool indicates that non-breaking spaces are needed, that units need to be written out in full (only at the first instance usually) and that there is scope to remove extra words like all, any, many, some and several.
 * I have tweaked the text to remove some of those useless words, and I have slightly re-organized the headers and limited the TOC to get it a bit shorter. I have started writing out units at the first case, but if you spot one I haven't gotten, feel free to jump in a clean it up ;). -SidewinderX (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SmackBot got some of the non-breaking spaces, but yea, there are still some more than need to be fixed. I'm kinda hoping that someone suggests a magical tool to automatically do that... *looks around* -SidewinderX (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The tool is also indicating that the lead is too short, it's often wrong but I think there is room for another paragraph, the new 'Engine failure' section is not mentioned. It might be useful to add a timeframe, we have first run (1974) in the infobox but the intro to service date and any other milestones are usually included in the lead (there are some dates in the main text that could be used).
 * I have tweaked the lead a little bit. I can't think of an easy to to incorporate the engine failure section into the lead... any suggestions? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A suggested new third paragraph:


 * Although the CFM56 is a reliable engine several serious fan blade failures were experienced during its early service, one failure was noted as a cause of the Kegworth air disaster, which were serious enough to ground the fleet or required the engine to be redesigned. Problems caused by flight through rain and hail were also remedied by modifications. By September 2009, the CFM56 had flown over 450 million cumulative hours (the equivalent of more than 51,000 years).


 * Just a suggestion BTW, don't feel that you have to add this verbatim or even add it at all. I believe that you do not have to use cites in the lead as long as the information is clearly cited elsewhere in the article. It gets complicated if 'as of' is used (see WP:ASOF), I use 'by' instead! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   17:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've modified your suggestion and added it to the lead. How does that read? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting there! Are the 'continuing improvements' related to safety/reliability as that is the 'thrust' of that paragraph? It's implying that the engine still has problems. I'm not seeing continuing improvements mentioned in the article (although it might be there!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, good point. I got lost in the forest for all trees for a minute there. You're right; that paragraph is about the engine failures and improvements, nothing else. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Images - There is a lot of discussion at the Featured Article candidates talk page about the poor quality of images in nominated articles, apparent lack of thought on their placement and copyright problems. They particularly note that images are being overlooked at project reviews. I would prefer if another editor reviewed the images so that I don't go on!!
 * Anyone willing to critique the images is more than welcome to! I know some of them (like the museum cut-away) aren't great photos, but, in that case, I feel it is useful in the article. One image I would like to use is a cut-away diagram (like the Flight International ones) and/or a flow diagram. However, none of these are free and it seems like defending a fair-use rational might be more trouble than it's worth. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hope that helps, I won't hog this as I've already said enough at the previous peer review! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - I feel this article is A-class material. A-class criteria: "It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources..." -Fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments - generally this is very good, engagingly written and well structured, cited and illustrated. I've made a few minor copyedits for style but have a few more comments:
 * Thanks for your comments, particularly for the "engagingly written" one. As I was researching the article I was drawn into the rather intriguing story of the engine, and I really wanted the reader to get that same engagement that I felt. I've read many a "good" article here on wikipedia that are just plain dull, and I don't want articles that I work on to feel like that if I can. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't need to repeat the citations for inital run and number built in both the intro and the infobox; I prefer a 'clean' infobox myself so suggest you drop them from there and leave them in the intro.
 * That makes sense. I'm guessing I put the cits in the info box first, and then worked them into the lead later. I have fixed it. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need the Work Split subheading - it's too small a subsection and should just be another paragraph under CFM International.
 * That's a fine suggestion, done. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the KC-135R and DC-8 subsections. The former appears fragmented with a couple of single-sentence paras that could be rolled up into the previous para (the one that begins The USAF announced...). Also it's a good idea to always finish a paragraph with a citation at A-Class level. Both these subsections fail to do that everywhere.
 * I integrated the short paragraphs into the main body, and slightly reworked the paragraphs to end with a citation. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Be good for first para of Design to have at least one citation, even if it is introducing the following subsections.
 * Ok, I've added a sentence and the citation. I will say that I feel a little silly adding a citation to an introductory paragraph, but I've seen enough FA reviews to know that some editors here have hard ons (if you will) for that sort of thing. Done! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All good, except could we have citations added for last sentence of First customers and last sentence of first para of KC-135 pls? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've added a cite to the First Customers section, and I've moved the cite over to include the last sentence of the KC-135 paragraph. I understand the "rule-of-thumb" approach to putting cites at the end of paragraphs, but in this case the last sentence is just there as a transition to the next paragraph, and I really don't think it's a "best practice" to list the cites at the end of the paragraph for the sake of doing it. It makes more sense to me to place the citation and the end of the material that needs the cite. That said, I'm the wiki-noobie in the group here, so I'll do what the practice is. -SidewinderX (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree but the reader doesn't know that for sure so it's generally best to cover all bases. Anyway, I'm happy to support this now - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comments Support
 * I'd convert the 20,000 lbf to kN in the first para of the Development section even though it's not strictly a A-class requirement.
 * Done! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Disambiguate the link to specific fuel consumption.
 * Done! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Copyright on all images looks good.
 * Ok, notice anything else I need to fix? -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.