Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hall XPTBH


 * 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.

Promoted --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hall XPTBH

 * Nominator(s): The Bushranger One ping only

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I believe it covers the topic to the full extent that the available, reliable references allow, and that it meets the criteria required for A-class. The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: do we have anything more on "delays in design caused by Hall relocating their production facility, difficulties with the contract, and doubts about the aircraft's performance potential led to a redesign" - sounds interesting and would make for a suitable substitute for information missing since it was never put into production. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure - I don't think there's much more that can be said about that, actually, but I'll see if I can find anything. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment:
 * An interesting plane. Some thoughts below:
 * Could be worth linking seaplane, aluminium and hurricane in the lead.


 * "Eight companies submitted ten designs in response, evenly split between monoplanes and biplanes" - might be worth adding "ten designs in total", to make clear it doesn't mean 80 designs.


 * "twin-float seaplane" - worth linking twin-float?
 * There isn't a link for it, but I've piped "seaplane" in the lede to the more precise link "floatplane".


 * "powerplant" - this seems to mean the engines, but I'd usually visualise powerplant as a generator, a truck engine or something like that, rather than aircraft engines.
 * Re-worded this a bit


 * "radials" - worth linking or saying "radial engines" or something like that.
 * radial engine is linked just before that, where the R-1820s are mentioned.


 * "Hand-traversed mountings " - I know what this means, but it is a fairly specialist term.
 * I've linked to Weapon mount there.


 * "dorsal and ventral" - I'd bet that many readers won't know these mean (although dorsal will be better known than ventral, thanks to sharks)
 * I've clarified that a bit.


 * "a lack of roll authority" - really needs explaining or a link. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit of explanation, hope that helps. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - good stuff. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on sourcing & citations: Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * replace hyphen with n-dash: Windrow 1970, pp.28-29.


 * Source formatting and quality seems fine. I'd suggest double checking ASIN documents to see if they don't actually have an ISBN.  ASIN is a less open format than ISBN; so ASIN should be treated as the fall-back when ISBN(/ISSN) is unavailable. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Double-checked; the Naval Aviation one doesn't have an ISBN per Amazon or WorldCat, while the 1st edition Wagner predates ISBNs. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments: I'm unable to comment on content as I don't know much about the requirements of aviation articles. As such, I've mainly limited my comments to technical issues and prose:
 * the featured article tools reported no disambig links, external links work (no action required);
 * there images seem correctly licenced to me (no action required);
 * the images lack alt text and while it is not a requirement, you may consider adding it in (suggestion only);
 * in the lead: "The Hall XPTBH was an American twin-engined seaplane, submitted to the United States Navy by the Hall Aluminum Aircraft Corporation in response to a 1934 specification for new bomber and scout aircraft." Perhaps try: "The Hall XPTBH was a prototype American twin-engined seaplane, submitted to the United States Navy by the Hall Aluminum Aircraft Corporation in response to a 1934 specification for new bomber and scout aircraft". I would then change the next use of the word "prototype" to "airframe" or something similar;
 * I suggest slightly tweaking this: "a single prototype was ordered by the Navy for evaluation on June 30, 1934 as the XPTBH-1,[6] the only case in which..." Perhaps try: "...a single prototype was ordered by the Navy for evaluation on June 30, 1934. Designated as the XPTBH-1,[6] it is the only case in which three mission letters have ever been used in the U.S. Navy's designation system."
 * Reworded slightly differently, how does it look?
 * this seems contradictory to the sentence in the preceding paragaph: "The only "triple-mission" aircraft acquired by the Navy prior to World War II". Was it the only triple-mission aircraft ever, or the only before the war? Additionally, it seems repetitive to the previous paragraph (are they the same thing, they sound similar to me as a layman, but I might be wrong), so I'd suggest dropping it altogether;
 * Well, it was the only one ever designated for three missions, but during and after the war other types were used in multiple missions (either undesignated, or with other designators "expanding". It does seem a bit redundant, though, so I've taken it out.
 * "contractual requirements for top speed and attack speed". Do we know what these were? How far behind these requirements was this aircraft?
 * Unfortunatly, none of the references I have state what the Navy's desired specs were - just that it fell short.
 * in the Reference section links to Google books generally don't need the retrieved dates (that is at least my experience of what is said at FAC. Its no big deal to me if you leave them in, though).
 * Well, I use those because sometimes the amount you can view changes with time - for instance, the Boyne book was fully viewable when I worked on the article, but not even a snippet view now!
 * regarding the work by Baugher, can you please confirm whether this is considered an RS? I seem to recall a number of discussions around this issue but am not sure of what the outcome was. Given that it is citing only the serial number of the frame, I don't think it should be an issue for you to use it here (I certainly don't have an issue with it), but you may just want to consider the possibility that it might be discounted at FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the last big brouhaha about that ended with no real consensus at WP:RSN. I think it's "it's reliable, sometimes, for some things". If this goes to FAC I'll see if I can replace it with something everybody agrees on. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've added my support. Thanks for making those adjustments. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments everone; I'll try to address them tomorrow. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've added my support. Thanks for making those adjustments. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments everone; I'll try to address them tomorrow. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support My only issues would be links for dorsal and ventral, but that's not enough to hold off on supporting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked for links, but the dorsal and ventral links strictly refer to anatomy at this time, and seemed like they might be off-context here. I can add them anyway though if others think they're fine. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 16 January 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.