Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Resources

Linking
I am thinking that we should make this page a bit more prominently and permanently linked on the Aircraft and Aviation project pages. As far as I can see it is only linked from discussions that will eventually be archived and I think this page is worth making permanently available, especially to new editors. Ideas on how to best do this? - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ I was thinking that too, so I went ahead and did it! Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Super, thanks for doing that! This page is really taking form, hopefully people will make use of it! - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues
If any editor has any issues with the reliability or otherwise of sites mentioned on the resources page, with the exception of those specifically marked as non-reliable but useful for further research, please raise them on this page for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Evidence for Baugher as a RS
Clarifying here from the RfA where it came up: a Google Books search for "Joe Baugher" shows that he is, in fact, a published source who is widely recognised as an expert in the field. To wit: "Military aviation expert Joe Baugher" ; "Joe Baugher, aviation historian" ; "Joe Baugher, "American Military Aircraft Encyclopedia," ; "A special acknowledgment has to go to Joe Baugher, whose magnificent web site on military aircraft serial numbers I visited over and over again seeking confirmation of data I had received on individual planes. Anyone doing military aircraft research must visit (address). It will be a visit well spent" ; "According to Joe Baugher's magnificent website" ; he is also cited as a source by and . - The Bushranger One ping only 22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * His work has also been extensively discussed in the past on WikiProject Aircraft and the consensus decision at that time was that his information is reliable as a source. - Ahunt (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahunt, could you please provide some links to back up this assertion? Errors in his work were also pointed out in at least one article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue has been raised at WP:RSN for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions: Jan 2008, Oct 2008 - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Goodness, the further I read into the links provided in this discussion, the more diparaging of good faith editors I find. "Tag team"?  Honestly, folks, deal with policy and avoid personalizing issues; that is not the way forward.  Any way, none of the links so far show consensus that this site is reliable.  We should also add an example of an error here:"At Talk:Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the accuracy of Joe Baugher came up. He was on record saying the P-38 engines were prone to overheating and also had problems with the oil never warming up enough—a clear contradiction. I think Joe Baugher must be assessed on a page-by-page basis rather than accepted at face value regardless. All of this concern about Baugher should not affect anybody's suitability for adminship. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)" Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually in reviewing the article in question and understanding these sorts of liquid-cooled engine installations as used in the P-38, I can only conclude that Baugher's text is not-inconsistant and that those who think it is are not correct. I think you will have to try harder to find errors. I have to note that even if you did find one error I am not sure that proves anything. Even the most reliable sources contain the odd error and that article is not even within the scope of what is being discussed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as that specifically deals with "Does Joe Baugher's website pass WP:RS in respect of his lists of American military aircraft serials?" and thus excludes the paqe that is worrying you. - Ahunt (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree-- incorrect regurgitation of other more reliable sources impacts potentially all of his work, which is why SPS advises caution in using self-published sources by authors who are not published in the relevant field, particularly when more reliable sources are available. We can avoid the opinions about whether Baugher is correct or not by simply going to the original sources.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point though - there is no error in his work there, despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. - Ahunt (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion: others disagree. More importantly, in this example, more reliable sources are available.  The argument here appears to boil down to the problem that those sources are harder to locate offline.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While the reliable source discussion is ongoing, to address (at least partially) Sandy's concern, I've added a note on the Resource page next to Baugher's website. This emphasizes that it's a self-published source, and reminds editors that Wikipedia has a policy specifically for such sources (which cautions against them). Mlm42 (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that, but I converted it to a reference-style note. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've summed up the discussion at RSN in the note. Baugher is useable, but effort should be made to find alternative sources where possible. Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Earth as Source for Basic Airport Data
This magnificent geographical tool called Google Earth should be a good resource for obtaining basic data about airports. You can zoom into any airport to know such things as its coordinates and runways. However, I found that using Google Earth as a resource is not welcomed by many contributors. Why would such a genuine source of information be discarded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdashti (talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Aviation International News
I just added Aviation International News to the "problem sources" section. It was used as a source to establish notability at an article that recently came up for AfD, and some digging reveals that one service that the publication offers is self-published articles, for a price, according to the company's media kit. Feel free to discuss if you disagree with me. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Luft'46 and The Aerodrome
Luft'46 is often cited as a source for articles on wacky German WWII projects. But it has no oversight and tends to swallow all the crazy Wunderwaffen fictions and rumours. There is enough RS around nowadays, that there is no excuse for resorting to it.

The Aerodrome has some expert authors but is not really peer reviewed and most content has no byline to identify the author. This RfC discussion is making it clear that it should not be seen as reliable.

Are there any objections to adding these to the Problematic sources list? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Luft'46 lists its sources, most of which appear to be reliable themselves. Would you give an example of the fictions or rumors you mentioned? -  ZLEA  T \ C 16:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Blohm & Voss MGRP is a fictional muddle. It was not designed by B&V but Karl Stöckel at the DVL. Moreover the design depicted is Stöckel's "aerial torpedo carrier" and not his MGRP, and the "Mistel" triplet is a total fantasy (Mistel re-used old airframes, it was never for the new stuff). You can find some original drawings reproduced here. The source for this clarification is Dan Sharp's published research on these original documents, I can look out the specifics if you wish to make a fuss. I expect I can get back to other examples I have seen, if need be. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at his sources, David Masters is unreliable, and for much the same reason - he even includes some of the flying saucer rubbish. Even Heinz Nowarra sometimes fills in gaps with dubious fabrications he found lying around. The key point is that Luft'46 is a self-published site by one Dan Johnson, who appears to have no track record in aviation publishing. There is no editorial oversight or peer review. See WP:SELFPUBLISH for why all this is unacceptable. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case I have no objections. - ZLEA  T \ C 18:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also going to post the URL for your website page in case anyone wants to take a look . - ZLEA  T \ C 18:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Problematic sources
I have been finding a lot of dubious citations in articles on German secret aircraft projects of WWII. I began a discussion of some at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aircraft and have added a couple to the list here as a result. Here are three more that are widely cited: Should these be added to the list? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * LuftArchiv.de - apparently self-published, not peer reviewed.
 * Black Sun Redux - fantasy garbage unlimited.
 * Nevington War Museum - sources from Wikipedia among other online sites.

Questionable sources
Wikipedia seems generally to talk of questionable sources, per WP:QUESTIONABLE. I have reworded the problems zone around this, and commented out a list of minor sites with narrow focus - there must be hundreds such and no point in attempting to highlight a smaller number here. I hope in due course to separate the remaining list into those which Wikipedia has seen fit to deprecate and those which are not deprecated but still regularly bug this project. Feel free to revert and discuss further, per WP:BRD, or just discuss here anyway. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Um. Wikipedia turns out to have lots of ways to corral the more grossly unacceptable sites/cites, including but not limited to WP:DEPRECATE, WP:BLACKLIST, WP:EDITFILTER and Auto-revert. Not sure I wish to engage in that hamster run, I'll stand back from refining the list structure after all. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Purging references to questionable sources
I have purged all easily-searchable references to a few of the sources in this project's list. It's hard work, some of them are cited hundreds of times. Is there an easy way to automate the task? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked at the Village Pump. There is no suitable tool, the best on offer is one to help write suitable scripts and run them semi-manually. Way over my head and still a lot of hard graft. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Two more of the same
One discussion forum, one book: If nobody objects, I will add these to the naughty list. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Kites, Birds and Stuff', by P.D Stemp, is a self-published series of books comprising indiscriminate scrapings from everybody else he could lay his hands on, including Wikipedia. It is ostensibly published by Lulu.com, but that is a print-on-demand online self-publishing service.
 * ww2aircraft.net is a discussion forum full of unreviewed user-generated content. A useful pointer to RS, but not an RS in itself.
 * Now added. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Update
Here is a current snapshot of the list, with the number of hits returned in a search on "source identifier". Automated purging appears to be impractical. I have purged a few manually but have no hope of doing it all on my own, so any and all help would be appreciated.
 * {| cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0

! Identifier !! Pages
 * theaerodrome.com || 488
 * airwar.ru || 278
 * aviastar.org || 0
 * ainonline.com || 167
 * greyfalcon.us || 0
 * Kites, Birds & Stuff || 20 (approx) 0 (done 09:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC))
 * luft46.com || 0
 * luftarchiv.de || 31 0 [done 08:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * militaryfactory.com || 0 (on aircraft)
 * nevingtonwarmuseum.com  || 0
 * planespotters.net || 1,169
 * secretprojects.co.uk || 0
 * ww2aircraft.net || 0
 * }
 * luftarchiv.de || 31 0 [done 08:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * militaryfactory.com || 0 (on aircraft)
 * nevingtonwarmuseum.com  || 0
 * planespotters.net || 1,169
 * secretprojects.co.uk || 0
 * ww2aircraft.net || 0
 * }
 * planespotters.net || 1,169
 * secretprojects.co.uk || 0
 * ww2aircraft.net || 0
 * }
 * ww2aircraft.net || 0
 * }

Notes on searching:
 * Use the "Search for pages containing"' option, or the full-page web form.
 * For online sources, the domain name is the best identifier; for books, use the title.
 * The quotes are important, as otherwise the result is drowned in hits on the individual words in the name.
 * This simple search misses in-page links which do not add the source identifier to the text of the citation, but it is a useful guide to the worst offenders.

&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding The Aerodrome. A list of offending articles is at User:Ljleppan/Aerodrome cleanup. At creation it listed 1600 articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

airwar.ru
Is airwar.ru a reliable source? I can't read a word of it. It is currently cited in at least 278 articles. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find a definitive discussion, but there are may references to it as unreliable and/or copyvio, and this discussion suggests adding it here. So I'll do that. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 23:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Aha, the English-language version has a home page at http://airwar.ru/indexe.html, titled "Sky Corner". Now I can see what the trouble with it is. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper sources
There is nothing aviation-specific in the  Newspaper resources section. Unless a consensus want to keep and develop it, I propose that it be deleted. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No objection. RecycledPixels (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

AIN Online
Aviation International News (ainonline.com) is listed in Common sources to avoid as it "accepts articles for publication directly from advertisers". I understand this could be viewed as a liability for their independence, but their sponsored content is clearly labelled as such. This is advertising and unfortunately seems to be happening in other reputable printed publications like aviationweek or flightglobal.

I think the publication quality is still high enough to be kept as a reliable source. Of course due to advertising no one within the trade press is going to be openly critical, but it's the way it is. Anyway, it is of higher quality than web-only publications as its reporters are actually going to physical events and reporting it, not just reading press release. And of course it's much better than personal pages. It should be reinstated as a reliable source.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, besides ordinary advertising space, it also accepts native advertising, i.e. copy that looks like impartial content but is in fact thinly-disguised promotional material provided by the advertiser. So it can be difficult to know whether you are reading impartial editorial or biased promotional content. No doubt some of its articles are reliable, the problem lies in figuring out which ones. Could you link to a typical example or two, as a quick visit has left me unable to find any such acknowledgements? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Sponsored content is in theirs "solutions in business aviation" section, and is clearly labelled as "Sponsor-supplied content".--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is just a promotional supplement, it is not the regular journal. Yes, the supplement is clearly identified as sponsor-supplied content, but I am not sure that all of it is. For example this short article reads like straight promotional copy but is presented as a news item by a named journalist. True, copy-paste from a promotional message is common in journalism, but can we really treat articles like this as reliable sources? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This is just industry news. It's as promotional as, say, the recent announcement by United that it's buying 200 Boeings, only on a smaller scale. If this is too much for you, so all usual aviationweek, flightglobal or whatnot news are also promotional.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Flight has changed, but it never used to be so gushingly and unquestioningly sycophantic. And it's not about me - or even you for that matter - it's about examining the issues and establishing a consensus view. Maybe we should seek wider participation here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's the business aviation type of news. AviationWeek or Flight are not immune either. Towards a wider particiaption, I think user:Ahunt is following this conversation.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation. I have been watching this issue for some time. I have used AIN as a ref in many articles. While many of their items are original content, some may be based on press releases, but this is done in most other aviation press publications as well. As far as AIN articles go, they all seem to be be subject to editorial oversight for accuracy, regardless of the source. I have never seen anything wrong published there. It is probably also worth pointing out that under WP:ABOUTSELF aircraft manufacturers and such are acceptable sources even if used directly for factual information, but not opinion. Based on my own experience I don't see any reason to exclude using AIN as a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This source appears to have been added to the list back in May 2019, with this note on the talk page. It's sounding like there may have been some misunderstanding back then about the nature of the paid content. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I think that editor has a point that reprinted press releases or similar don't confer notability for WP:GNG as they are pretty close to fact-checked (hopefully) primary sources. But they are fine to still use, they just don't establish topic notability. It should not have been added to the "ignore" list on that strength. - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the exact context of when I added that source, but it's in close proximity to my comments at Articles for deletion/Click Aviation Network, where I was seeing some suspicious PR masquerading as independent reporting from AIN, and commented as such.  I'm not normally in the habit of digging through the media kit of various websites to add them to a hitlist of sources to avoid, but I don't remember exactly what source was being cited or how it was being used in the article, since it has been deleted.   Perhaps someone with the admin bit could review it and see if I overreacted.  My vague recollection was that my discovery of the media kit was an aha! moment, because it completely explained the piece I was looking up, and it was clearly not marked as promotional material.   Otherwise, I have no objection to either keeping or removing the publication from the bad list if Marc attests that there is actually independent editorial review and editing happening.   RecycledPixels (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, at the time, I added it to a section titled "problematic sources", but the section was later changed to "questionable sources", and then a new "common sources to avoid" heading was added above it during all of Steelpillow's work reorganizing and refining this page.  So, in that context, I think it should be left here as a source to watch out for, but not necessarily to be forbidden, if there is also good reliable, independent content on that site as Marc says.  RecycledPixels (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. In the AfD comment you missed that the media kit also requires the sponsor of native advertising to send in their company logo, so that bit is probably about the legitimate advertorial highlighted by . However all may not be well. I went back to the article I found that looked too much like advertising copy, took a passage that was quoted; "paves the way to additional high-end technology work in our Tucson facilities" and searched the web on it. Got three hits, all clearly taken from the same press release but with a bit of juggling with the content so they're not identical:(AIN)(Rotor Pro)(AirMed&Rescue). Two, including AIN, name the journalist who played drag-and-drop with the text, one actually categorises it as a press release. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not recall ever seeing the likes of Flight or Aviation Week or our many other RS put up unidentified promotional material in this way. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this kind of paraphrasing press releases is common (this is the original PR). For the above mentionned Flight article on Bombardier London Biggin Hill service centre, the articel is not far away from BBD's PR. It is industry news, after all. Really independent aviation media is rare. I can think of Jon Ostrower's AirCurrent, or LeehamNews, but they have their own problems due to their small size.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is so commonplace among RS, then perhaps you could link to a couple of examples from Flight and Aviation Week? By contrast, this piece in AviationWeek. although clearly also based on a press release, is repeatedly at pains to distance its own judgement from the company's claims. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * For Flight, I gave one example just above. For AvWeek, there is another BBD Service Centre opening with an article very similar to the press release (with the exact same quote of Eric Martel. On the opposite side, I often find AIN's russian correspondant very relevant, like their accidents section.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, my apologies for missing the Flight link. My viewing has timed out for the month, so it will be a while before I can check it out. Perhaps others here can comment sooner. I think the Aviation Week comparison reinforces my point. Copying quotes, complete with attribution, is a perfectly respectable practice, and it is also careful to edit out the more self-promotional blurb about "high efficiency", "comprehensive" commitment and suchlike. AIN Online is altogether less fussy. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To bypass Flight's paywall, just open the link in an incognito browser (or block cookies, maybe). I agree AvWeek's rephrasing is a bit better, but there is no more reporting whatsoever, just taking the news from a supplier, with no opposing views. AIN seems to have a similaly neutral rephrasing. In any case, its editorial process is better than web-only news outlets.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, got it now. It's OTT value judgements like "showcasing our unwavering commitment to our European customers with industry-leading services on a global scale" that we don't want cited on Wikipedia. Flight is careful to excise it. Having searched a few articles on AIN Online, it does appear that you are right and they also either cut it out or mark it as sponsored. On that basis, I agree that it should come of the naughty list and, to be honest, I don't think there is any point in noting any special caveats either, as AIN already do that. My apologies for being so sticky about this, but it was not obvious to me what was going on here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Great then, I think we have a consensus on this! Is it possible to revert the removals of this ref that were recently done? - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Only manually I think; you'd have to go through my edit history for the last few weeks. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay I did a couple, citing this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Christmas is awful close, or I'd have more time to do it myself. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - well, sort of. I went back to 4 October and reverted all that could be reverted. Some of course were not possible to due more recent edits. - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)