Talk:Airbus A320 family/GA2

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to give this article a Review for possible WP:GA status but I have three concerns going in:

1. Firstly, the article was nominated by someone who has not worked on the article in any large capacity. As a matter of fact, I think they edited this article once, so do the major contributors really have the time or inclination to work through a Review?
   
2. Secondly, this article is truly massive and it is going to take me quite a while to get through it - please be patient with me.
   
3. Thirdly (and last), I would very much like to get my Review done before the end of March since I am participating in the most-recent GA Cup. If no one responds within a day or two to the queries I am going to shortly post, then I will probably abandon the Review - I cannot do this in a vacuum. Thank you, Shearonink (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

NOTE: This Review is on hold until one of its editors can explain the large commonality (98.7%) score it received between this article and http://www.skytamer.com/Airbus_A320.html. (To see the comparison just use the Copyvio Detector in the GA Toolbox). Shearonink (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Class455: This commonality/possible copyvio needs to be dealt-with/corrected/fixed/researched. I don't know if these other sites lifted content from here or vice versa or what but an uncomfortable amount of passages are exactly the same or too close for comfort (there is also a 75% score for globalaircraft.org/planes/airbus_a320.pl.) It might be possible to do a wayback machine search to see what the oldest saved URLs of these other websites were like, to see which came first WP or these other two websites. I'll continues to work on the various sections but I cannot possibly pass this article to a GA status until this is all resolved. Shearonink (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: - Its the opposite way round. The site you've linked credits Wikipedia as a source, if you scroll to the bottom, so they have cut and pasted information from here. I've also seen a few YouTube descriptions which came up on the Copyvio detector back in August, but its pretty clear it was cut and pasted. The other website you have put (globalaircraft.org), the page seems to have been deleted, as when I pasted the link it came up with a 404 error. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Class455: Ah, thanks for clearing that up - I missed it on the page. I might put a note into the headers about the commonality actually originating from the WP article & not the other way around to forestall any possible future issues. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I am working my way through the entire article in order, but, so far so good. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Referencing issues:

   Ref #9 seems to be dead - it goes to a general page, rather than a specific page.

   Ref #14 has gone dead. Or something.

   Ref #100, 103 are invalid - all of the airbus.com cites have changed.

   Ref #102 has gone dead. Shearonink (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed - I have replaced the deadlinks with new sources. I also had to amend the content which was backed up with dead reference 100 so that it matched the new source I added. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Ok,thanks. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   @Class455: Please see 'References' section and 'A320' section below. Shearonink (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Very stable, gets some editing flurries but I was unable to find any recent edit-warring. Shearonink (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   One image - File:A32XFAMILYv1.0.png - has a parameter that states it is the uploader's own work & I am not sure that this is so. Please investigate its status - it looks very similar to another image that I saw on the Airbus website. Shearonink (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I have investigated this, and I cannot find any image on the internet which matches the uploader's work, so I'd rule out a copyvio here. I also checked to see if any other files which have been uploaded by the same person had been tagged for deletion. One was listed at Commons requests for deletion here but this was kept. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I must have seen some similar artwork/drawings in my reading - I consider this matter dealt-with. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   The same user created numerous other airliners 3-way drawings, with the same style for different manufacturers. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   What a lot of work both Class455 and Marc Lacoste have done to adjust the content to the Criteria. Great job pulling everything together - Congrats it's a GA.

   Thinking toward future improvements, I do think the references need to be brought into agreement with each other - there are some almost-bare URL refs that should probably be filled out a little more completely (as in 'cite book', 'cite web' or whatever). There are 4 in the "A320 Enhanced family" section, 1 in the "Overview" section, 1 in the "A319CJ" section, and 1 in the "Freighter" section. Shearonink (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward, as soon as the commonality issues are dealt with, I will be going through the entire article in order. It is so massive that I think I will only be able to do one entire proofing-readthrough so I am going to take my time. Each section will be posted down here in order, as I come to the section in the article, along with opinions & any issues I have found. After I have gone through the entire article, I will then go over it and assess if it fulfills the various GA Criteria. Shearonink (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is well-written, lays out the claims for notability, and doesn't devolve into trivia. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good prose, statements are all referenced. Good-to-go. Shearonink (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No issues found. Shearonink (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am frankly amazed at how well-written this article has been so far - yes, this article is massive but good job on the prose and the sourcing at every turn. This section passes muster. Shearonink (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No prose issues, grammar is nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar, punctuation, prose - A+. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Class455: There are a few issues with this section:

• UK, France and West Germany wanted the responsibility of final assembly and the associated duties, known as "work-share arguments", driven by, apart from money, prestige.

This sentence seems oddly-phrased - too many commas, difficult to follow its sense. Please adjust and rephrase. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2009, Airbus required about eight months to build one A320.[45][verification needed] The Toulouse Blagnac final assembly line builds A320s; Hamburg Finkenwerder A318, A319 and A321; Tianjin, China assembles A319s and A320s; and A319s, A320s and A321s are assembled in Mobile, Alabama.[46] Airbus produced 42 A320 per month in 2015, and expects to increase to 50 per month in 2017.[47]

The tenses of the verbs in this sentence are mixed-up with each other. It is referring to 2009 but then implies that these statements are still true. There is also a maintenance template "verification needed" that I missed on my previous readthrough. The issues this template mentions will have to be corrected before any further work can be done on this Review. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Shearonink:, I shall rectify this by tomorrow morning at the latest. I've had a short look through in the meantime and I will have a look round for a source to back up the verification needed tomorrow morning, if not then I'll remove or reword the sentence. With the other grammar fixes, I'll also do this tomorrow when I have a clearer head. Is that okay with you? Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds fine. I do have some other obligations the next few days but I will pick away at all the sections and get through them as soon as I can. Regarding editorial matters on a GA Review - the way I look at it is you're the writer and I'm the editor and I'll try to stay out of the way of the creative process unless it's a matter of the GA Criteria. Shearonink (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 08:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed - I had to remove the area tagged by the ^{[verification needed]} template, as I don't believe this was true myself. If anyone does find any more verification on that part then they are welcome to re-add it. Other than that I have fixed the grammar. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 09:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Class455:No issues with prose/punctuation/grammar - all good. I am having trouble pulling up Ref #56/www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No issues found - prose/referencig/grammar/punctuation all look good.

A-ok, all GA Criteria fulfilled in this section.

This sentence comes out of nowhere:

• Since 2007 the cabin was fitted to more than 600 aircraft as of March 2009. Airbus says it offers better luggage storage and a quieter cabin, packaged with a more modern look and feel.

The previous paragraph was all about the Sharklet wing-tips and then suddenly the cabin-changes are mentioned. The cabin changes need to be more fully-developed in their introduction to the article. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress - Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed - I have created a small introduction for the cabin. The introduction in 2007 is already supported by the source in the next sentence so hopefully that shouldn't be too much of an issue. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Class455: At the end of the first sentence there are five references listed - this is a little bit of a case of Citation overkill. There are two ways to deal with this issue:

1. Some of the references could be deleted - after all, an article only really needs one reliuable source for any assertion. or
2. The references could be bundled as in WP:CITEBUNDLE which works like this - examples from Casualty (series 30):
   

Alicia returned in the final episode of the series, broadcast on 30 July.^[1] Alistair Brammer made his first appearance in episode fourteen, broadcast on 5 December 2015, as receptionist Jack Diamond.^[2]
Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed - Removed 3 out of the 5 sources, two of which were from books. Also, my mum's a big fan of Casualty . Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Class455: No issues = prose/grammar/punctuation/references all look good, but please see following sections. Shearonink (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only problem found here is a maintenance template - "citation needed".

• With the exception of the very earliest A320s, most can be upgraded to the latest avionics standards, keeping the aircraft advanced even after two decades in service.

The issue raised by this template needs to be addressed. Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it with more neutrality from a PR ref, checked the other refs and reordered the section : [1] --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prose/references/grammar/etc - everything is within the GA Criteria.

A-ok. Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think most readers will be unfamiliar with the terms single-bogie and double-bogie in regards to these aircraft. Comment. There are two sentences in the article that do not appear to be specifically sourced. In this section:

• The direct Boeing competitor is the 737-800.

and in the next section, "A321"

• Its direct competitors include the 757–200 and the 737-900/900ER.

I know that in the lead this sentence appears:

• The aircraft family competes directly with the 737 and has competed with the 717, 757, and the MD-80/MD-90.

plus this referenced statement appears in the "Shrinking the A320: A319" section:

• It would provide direct competition for the 737–300/-700. [Ref 57].

It seems to me that this sentence or phrase needs to be directly referenced within the main article text. .Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "closest competitor" (more neutral) and added a ref.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looks good, but see notes within "A320" section. Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems fine. Prose, punctuation, grammar, referencing - all look good Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information in these sections is referenced from reliable sources. Grammar/prose/punctuation all look good.

One issue is the list of 5 citations at the end of "For the entire A320 family, 91 aviation accidents and incidents have occurred, including 35 hull-loss accidents with a total of 1,392 fatalities as of May 2016." I think this is a case of WP:Citation overkill. There are two ways of correcting this problem: 1) remove some of the references or 2) cite bundle them. As soon as I find a good example of this, I'll post it here. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, never mind I already covered Cite-bundling up there somewhere ^^^ in a previous post, please take that advice and apply in this instance as well. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, checked and updated.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references are incomplete and lack date., access-date, publisher. The following refs need some work:

• Ref #52 - incorrect title

done--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #82 - incomplete (publisher, etc)

done--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #95 - incomplete
• Ref #97 - incomplete

both done --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 106 - incomplete - lacks publisher, date, access-date, etc.

updated before--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #119 - incorrect name "National Geographics"

removed before --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first occurrence of a cite within an article is when the complete/full cite is used. Afterwards the cite is characterized as <citename/>. So far as I can tell all the multiple instances in this article have incorrect usage for the multiple-cite references, including the following:

• <ref name="Airbus_Orders">{{Cite web |url=http://www.airbus.com/company/market/orders-deliveries/ |title = Airbus Orders and Deliveries |work=Airbus |date=28 February 2017 |format=xls |accessdate=6 March 2017}}</ref><ref name="Airbus_Hist_OD"/>

This cite's first occurrence should have this complete info.

The following also have this issue:

• Ref #17
• Ref #4

I'm not sure to understand what you mean. WP:REFNAME doesn't specify we should have the complete citation at its first occurrence. The "Orders and Deliveries" ref is a good example, it's in the #Orders and deliveries section because it's where it's the most useful : when it is updated, it is used by the editor to update the OD table with the ref available in the edit preview.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the refs that have multiple usage within the article need to be gone through to make sure that they comply with the WP:MOS, I know there is some WP guideline somewhere about this but can't find it at the moment. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUPCITES? I replaced harvard refs used only once by inline refs. I didn't found any duplicates by scanning rapidly, but didn't used a tool.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the "first use" ref-statement I am thinking of is not a guideline/policy but a "should" kind of thing and now I can't find it but it's not a guideline so nevermind - moving on. Shearonink (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All look good, nice job. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the above open tasks are addressed - References, A320, Operators/Orders and deliveries/Accidents and incidents/Specs/Engines (cite bundling), Design/Flight deck and avionics & Engines (citation needed template) - I should be able to finish up this GA Review within a day or two afterwards. Shearonink (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: I think I have it all done, you will tell. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc Lacoste and Class455: Done. Thanks for all your work. Shearonink (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]