Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Blériot XI


 * 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.

No consensus to promote at this time Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Blériot XI

 * Nominator(s): Petebutt (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it seems to meet the criteria for at least A-class, if not higherPetebutt (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Comments : I'm sorry, but I don't believe that this article meets the A-class criteria at the moment. I won't oppose at this stage, though, because I think that with a bit of work it could be brought up to scratch. These are a few of the issues that I see: Comments:
 * lead: currently this is being used as an introduction, however, at A-class a lead should summarise the whole article. As such, if possible, can you please expand the lead to summarise the rest of the article? Two or three paragraphs would probably be enough;
 * referencing: currently the article has large amounts of information that do not appear to be covered by a citation. The general rule in the Military History project is that at a bare minimum each paragraph needs a citation at the end of it if all the information contained in that paragraph came from a single source. If multiple sources were used, more citations would be required throughout the paragraph in the appropriate places;
 * structure: I suggest moving the information that is in the "Further development" section to the "Design and development" section. Additionally, I suggest making the "Military use" section a subsection of the "Operational history" section;
 * coverage: currently the lead mentions that the aircraft first flew on 23 January 1909, but this doesn't appear to be mentioned in the body of the article. As this is a key part of the development of the article, I feel it should be mentioned. Additionally, could more be added about its military use. Was it considered successful in the roles that it was used? Also, there is a long list of operators, but the Military use section only mentions a few of these;
 * English variation: I found some variation of English in the article. For instance "meters" (US) and "metres" (British Commonwealth). Either version would be acceptable, but it should be consistent;
 * Famous pilots list: I don't have much experience of aircraft articles, so I'm not sure if there is a guideline supporting the use of this list or not. However, personally I'm uncertain about the value of this list. Are these pilots famous for their exploits in this aircraft, or just in general? If the latter, I'd suggest removing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been a few recent improvements, but I don't believe they are enough to bring it up to standard. As such, unfortunately I have to oppose its promotion at this time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with AustralianRupert - the referencing definitely needs some more work before its ready to A Class.
 * It would also be worth checking through the citations; Gibbs-Smith is mentioned, for example, but isn't in the bibliography; Munson is in the bibliography but isn't used.
 * My advice would be to take it through Good Article review first, then A Class. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose due to the lack of citations if nothing else. Sorry, but compare this with the De Havilland Comet article also up for ACR at this moment, where each paragraph is fully cited to at least one source, and all operators are also cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm the editor who has done most of the recent adding to this article. Interesting to read the above comments. A few points:
 * The referencing certainly need improving. With the design & development it's more a problem with which source to cite, but I'm (sort of) on it. Gibbs-Smith is not in the bibliography because he doesn't have a great deal to say about the aircraft, but he is good for the cite about the Chauviere propeller.
 * The list of famous pilots seemed to be a good way of including the information, & was how I found the article. I'll have another look at the list, but all of them that I've looked at or added did notable things in the type.
 * I made a considered decision to split the technical stuff about the machine into two sections, with the Channel flight in between. This is because before the Channel flight it was just another of Bleriots many attempts to make a sucessful aircraft. After the channel flight, everything changed: the whole later development & subsequent history is consequence of that flight, and it seemed to make sense to split the article that way. I'm entirely open to persuasion, but it seemed to make more narrative sense.
 * Oppose There's no way the article is A class in my opinion. A lot more could be written on the military use (not my strong point or primary interest): and the list of variants is in my opinion rather undeveloped. I don't have the Tom Crouch book on the type, & I am highly suspicious of the only book have which covers these, Opdycke's French Aeroplanes before the Great War. There's also nothing (as yet) on those built by other companies under license.
 * I'll have a go at expanding the lead, & the point about first flight not being in the body of the article is certainly one I'll deal with.TheLongTone (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Mostly for the points listed above by the other reviewers. I would suggest that the list of notable pilots be reworked by incorporating the significant achievements of the aircraft flown by these pilots into the main body of the article. Many more details of the military use of the aircraft would be required for it to be assessed as complete in my eyes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2012 (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.