Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arado Ar E.381/archive1


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


 * Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28 days -MBK004 06:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Arado Ar E.381

 * Nominator(s): WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has gone to GA, and I feel it meets the requirements for A. WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * GraemeLeggett - not yet ready
 * lacking in areas - while three different prototypes are mentioned it is not clear if these are the only 3 or how many aircraft were built in total - the photo rationale mentions 4. Also there is no information on the testing of these aircraft - did they fly or where they just carried aloft. What happened to the prototypes? If these things are not known then they ought to be addressed in the article lest it appear the article is unfinished rather than the sum of what little is known.
 * specification - which variant the text is for is not given. I'm guessing that it was rockets or gun. "several" for rockets does not explain either type or number carried. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * done WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Coordinator note - please do not strike other editor's comments. -MBK004 05:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose
 * There's a lot of missing information as Graeme said.
 * Were test flights made? If so, what were the results? If not, why not? What about drop tests from the Ar 234?
 * done WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The text could use some clean-up. Detail the landing procedures once and say that they apply, I presume, to all variants.
 * Aren't they already detailed enough? The aircraft gets close to the ground, deploys the chute, and skids to a stop. WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarify that these aircraft had little capability against fighters, and were specifically designed for use against bombers.
 * Done WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Break out the bibliography separately from the citations; I found it confusing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to get this book: Dieter Herwig; Heinz Rode, Luftwaffe secret projects, Vol. 3 : ground attack & special purpose aircraft; it's got some good information on the aircraft's development.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment
 * We have an article for Parasite aircraft but that's unreferenced never having heard the term before I think unless its in common usage it should have a cite.
 * I think it is common usage WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Germany in the inf box redirects to Federal Republic of Germany
 * ✅ WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * interception of heavily armed American and British bombers British bombers were not heavily armed and it also suggests that the Arado Ar.E381 had a night fighter role against the RAF
 * ✅ WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * They probably had only very limited capability against fighters. sounds very POV
 * don't you agree? this is very probable anyway WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * twin-fin empennage is linked to Empennage but the section its linked to has the main article template so is this the right link ?
 * yeah WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In the Specifications (E.381/I) section the reference would be better at the end so its obvious it covers all the data.
 * The ref is created by the specs template WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Large parts of the aircraft specifications template are unused and can be removed.
 * Later data can be added by IPs without exhausting research on templates if kept WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also agree with Sturmvogel 66 about the bibliography and the publishers locations could be added.
 * I don't really know about the publication data. Parsecboy added the sources. WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NielsenGW added some of the sources, not I. I have, however, gone ahead and fixed them. For future reference, you can look up published materials at [www.worldcat.org worldcat] and find publishing locations, ISBNs, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe A Class is possible but some work still needed. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—A1 citation presentation quality: Green, William (1971). I suspect the number is part of a book in series, not the title.  Similarly with Griehl, Manfred (1998).  Did no author with a name M-Z publish on this topic? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. What does the authors' names matter to the quality of the sources? WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 15:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that I have fixed the issue with Green. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The question regarding authors M-Z is that authors tend to have a variety of last names, spread across all letters, even in fields of very minor study such as a particular parasite aircraft. I'm asking if a full literature survey has been conducted, as only having a limited set of author last name starting letters indicates potential missing sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * there is a mixture of British and US English, for instance "armour" which is British, but also "meters" and "kilometers" (in the Specifications section) which are US;
 * ✅ WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * there is an "awkward" tag and a "clarification needed" tag which should be rectified (I think that you can deal with the clarification tag by just saying "of an unspecified type"). The awkward tag can be fixed by rewording. I wasn't sure exactly what was meant so I left it alone, sorry;
 * ✅ WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The "clarification needed tag" is still in the article (in the Variants subsection). Are you able to fix this one up? I believe that you can fix this by just explaining what type of rockets they were (if unspecified, just say "of an unspecified type"). AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed this for you. Please check that you agree with what I have done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * the final paragraph of the Development section needs a citation. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unknown and unclear. Do we need a cite for that? WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, for A class, I believe so. Otherwise is it might seem like original research to say that it is unknown and unclear. The sources that you have used must surely say something that confirms this which you can cite? One way to approach this might be to say something like this: "The sources are unclear about which variants the prototypes were or whether or not they were air tested." (You could then have a footnote after the sentence with a brief commentary of the what the sources actually say, e.g. "Smith 2010, p. 999 briefly discusses the four variants but gives no details about test flights, while Bloggs 2001, p. 111 similarly does not discuss this." Just a suggestion. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 14:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. I still think it would be best to add a quick footnote, though, which quickly discusses what the sources actually say around the matter, or what sources were consulted which have proven to be unclear. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who added the current sources. (Say thanks to Parsecboy and NielsenGW for that) so I'm not sure what they say exactly. WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 22:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Given that the review is rather mature now, in order to make sure that the nominator has the best chance of success, could other editors who have commented on the article please take another look and determine whether or not WikiCopter has addressed the concerns raised, or whether more work is required? Also, WikiCopter, have you addressed Fifeloo's comment about the breadth of sources? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the current amount of sources is enough, and I have searched Google Books for more information. You may do so again if you wish. WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 22:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments I feel that more could be said about the development here, specifically issues like what brought about this particular philosophy, was this a byproduct of the impending collapse of the 3rd Reich (like a a weapon of last resort, similar the kamikaze units in the IJN) or was it meant for actual useful war service, whose idea was this, who were the people behind the design of the plane, etc, etc. Also, I added a cn tag to the last sentence about the disagreeing sources, while I understand that its just a one liner I still would like to see the information cited, or better yet the one liner reworked into a paragraph on what exactly the sources disagree over. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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.