Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Combustor

Combustor
Now that the article has gotten through a pretty thorough peer review that added some useful content, I’d like to get this article promoted to A-class. All modesty aside, I think it is the best written, best cited, "component" article in the Aviation project, and I think improving it to the A-class level would help set a clear standard for these types of articles (which we need to do better on as a wikiproject, IMO). I think the article is close to A level, and I’m looking forward to bridging that final gap with your help. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Support: Looks like a fine article. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As had been said previously, the article is superb. Just one thing I'd like to add is that you might want to consider putting the ISBN number on the references which I assume are from a book. Otherwise, on first read its a very good article. Hope this helps, Plane Person (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC).


 * Thanks for your comments. If you look in the Bibliography section, below the references, the full citations with ISBNs are spelled out. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, didn't see the bibliography. Personally I can't see anything wrong with the article now to stop it gaining an A-Class award but I'm not very experianced and I don't know fully the specific A-Class criteria. Plane Person (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC).


 * I have had a look at the article in the past and recently and made a few minor corrections (not all of which were retained) and must say it is a very good article. However there may be some confusion with combustor in the incinerator sense. Some method of disambiguation may be required like-

Combustor (continuous combustion engines)

something like that. Just a thoughtPetebutt (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, but is there an article on wikipedia for that other type of combustor already? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This review needs more input or be closed out in some manner. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)