Talk:Penshurst Airfield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Very well done. Fine article, very close to GA, but has a few little, niggling details I'd like to see resolved if they can be before passing it.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Reads well, covers its points in a good fashion. The multitude of wikilinks are slightly distracting to my eye, but none of them are unnecessary. However, one concern I do have, in the "Civil accidents and incidents" section, the main-article link to the Air Union crash is somewhat jarring and looks out-of-place; at a glance, I'd associate it with the Powell crash above it. Is there any way this can be altered?
I've given this a tweak, moving the bullet point and indenting the text. The only other alternative is to remove the hatnote.
My personal preference would be to remove it, but I won't insist if you think it works. It is clear which accident it relates to now, so this is Go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Exceptionally well-sourced. Virtually all of the references used I'd give an A++ for reliability to, and the few that aren't are A or A+, so no worries here. Well done. Everything well-cited without OR or SYNTH.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Coverts virtually all aspects of the airport, and doesn't stray from the subject. However, the section for the 1910s seems a bit sketchy. "Airfield was established, aircraft operated, war ended, RAF sold it off" is about what it amounts to. Is there anything that can be added to the article about its World War One service? What aircraft were operated, and what roles did they perform? Only wireless training, or anything else?
Tricky one this, Milborne One and I have added as much as we can from the sources we have available. I've given WT:MILHIST a shout in the hope that other editors can pitch in and expand this a bit. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully something will turn up. I won't hold it against the article if it can't be, but let's see what can be found first. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Covers the airfield well without neutrality violations, or any PEACOCK that I can see. Nicely done.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Fairly new article, but appears to be stable, and certainly no edit-warring or reverting going on.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All but two pictures are Common and free-use. I'd suggest moving the period pictures to the top of the "tree of pictures", Bleriot first, but that's a quibble. I do have questions about two pictures though. The B-17 picture - are you sure this isn't a free image? I'd expect it to be an official USAAF photo and thus PD-USGOV. And about that Bleriot...are we sure it's PD-OLD? Since it's certaily not 100 years old yet itself, one would presume the author's death-plus time isn't 100 years either?Ah, just found the discussion already on the talk page about them, my concerns were addressed there. Good to go on photos!
As discussed above, the Blériot photo is, as far as I can tell, PD. As it says on the B-17 documentation, the photo is not claimed as free of copyright. It's at least 90% certain that it is a PD-USGOV photo, but in the absence of proof it is being treated as a copyright photo. You are correct about the order of images, and that has been changed. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better to err on the side of caution, agreed. And thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold pending the addressing of the subjects raised above. I don't see any show-stoppers though, and hope to be able to pass this one soon. Good luck! - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
Article has been improved. I'd still like to see more about WW1, but given it's fairly obscure role in the grand scheme of things, that's something for ACR or FAC, not to hold up GA. Nice work! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]