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

Reviewer: ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) 15:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I usually start my reviews with a few broad comments before getting into specifics...

My initial impression is the article is well referenced, reasonably comprehensive, and in general close to GA quality. There are a couple things that jump out at me.

1. First, the lead is not an adequate summary of the body. Specifically it contains material not found in the body of the article (info about Verille's personal life) and may be a bit light on summarizing his career. On the same note, the body of the article is missing a personal life section which is fairly standard to biographies. Is much known about his early life (birth, childhood, education)? If so, the article should open with an "early life" section covering these details and after the career stuff (before "planes by") should be a "personal life" section with his marriage, children, death, and anything else notable about him. If not much is known about his early life, the personal life section should also contain his birth and can either appear before or after career stuff.
2. The fellowship info looks out of place. That a fellowship was named after Verille is worth mentioning (probably in the honors section), but who has received it is not relevant to Verille's bio. If the fellowship is notable in its own right, the info can be moved to a stand-alone article; or perhaps another appropriate home can be found, but this article isn't it.
3. The "Buhl and Verville Aircraft Companies" section seems fairly light on details; if you disagree simply say why it can't be expanded much

That is all for now - I may find some minor issues when I do a more thorough review. I am placing the article on hold for now to give you a chance to respond. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @ThaddeusB: for the feedback. I tried to incorporate all your feedback in my edits I just made. A made your bullet points numbers so I can reference them here. Also here is the link to all the edits I made in response to your comments.

1. Great observation. I moved all the personal life details from the lead into the old "Early Career" section, which I renamed Early Life (its a better characterization of the section as well). I left it before his other career sections, because it flows better. I also expanded the lead a bit to fill in some details of his career.
2. I agree. I removed the fellowship awardees, and just left a mention of it (along with the reference) in the honors section as you suggest.
3. I expanded the Buhl/Verville section and added a few plane details. If you think it needs more expansion, please let me know.

Look forward to any more insightful comments, such as these! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Butting in here, I saw the change made to the Lindbergh Chair article and it catalyzed me to create the A. Verville Fellowship article out of that material. I don't want to interfere with this GA nomination, but I could not sit still while the Lindbergh article was hosting someone else's award. Verville, in any case, deserves a page dedicated to the fellowship named in his honor. Right? Best wishes... Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• By the way, I consider that the article A. Verville Fellowship was not created by me, that it was instead created by Jonverve and Nasa-verve. I just moved some text around. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read my mind Binksternet! Awesome and thanks! Nasa-verve (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gotta say, @Guy1890: just did what appears to be over an hour and a half of incredibly good copy edits on this article and it really made everything flow better. Thanks Guy!! Nasa-verve (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'll say upfront that I don't have much experience at all with GANs, but I did take a stab at mostly copy-editing the article in question here. I do have some small experience with more modern military aircraft Wikipedia articles though.

Citation #6 appears to be forum posting, citation #9 is an amazon.com link for some reason, and citation #14 appears to be a link to a blog, which might edited by an aviation expert (?). From this section of the article in question, was the Ford National Reliability Air Tour a part of the National Air Races or were they separate entities?

I don't really see anything else that might be controversial with the article in question here at this time, but keep in mind my lack of experience with GANs when I say that.  ;) Good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again @Guy1890:. So about the citations. #6 being a forum posting - it was the only reference or link that I could find to substantiate the claim of his ancestry, so I had to use it, would love to find something better, but until then... #9 is a amazon link because it previews the book and takes you to the exact page in question. if you feel this is innapropriate feel free to remove it. #14 is a well respected blog and is definately edited by a aviation expert, but I do not have any more details about that. And to your last question, not really sure about the Ford National Reliability Air Tour and its relationship with the National Air Tour. I'll look it up when I have some time. Nasa-verve (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Good work guys. I'll give this a careful look over tomorrow and see if any issues remain. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks @ThaddeusB: Just to let you know, I'm all done with my edits. I just finished up some copyediting and expansion of early life, but am now done. Nasa-verve (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full Review

First of all, I made some copyedits and tweaks. Please review those to make sure no errors were introduced in the process.

Lead

• Part of the lead is cited and part uncited. Either style is fine, but it should be consistent.
  • Made all uncited  Done
• "partly to observe the development of aviation in Europe" isn't clear and isn't explained in the body of the article. Was he observing and reporting on the progress of avaition devleopement in Europe?
  • I removed the text you quote altogether, since it would be difficult to summarize without confusion.  Done
• "Verville spent sixteen years of service" is unclear. I think it probably means form 1945 to 1961. If so, it should say the "next sixteen years"; if not, it should say "sixteen years in total" or similar.
  • changed to next sixteen years  Done
• I would mention HOF induction and perhaps (optionally) omit the scholarship bit
  • great idea, i did just that  Done

Early career

• Optional (not part of GA criteria so wont' be counted against you whatever choice is made). The article is well illustrated and the quotebox adds little while sticking out into the text. Consider dropping it.
  • Comment: I really like the quote because it gives great context to explaining why he really wanted to be a pilot, instead of a designer/engineer, which he turned out to be really great at.  Question: Thoughts?
    • Moving the pic to the left largely fixed the funky formatting and moving the quote inline was also an improvement. NO objection to keeping it now.
• Optional Consider moving the flyign boat pic the the left to create visual variation
  •  Done

Government service

• Consider re-titling ("Service to US Army"?) to distinguish between this and later gov't service
  • changed to U.S. Army service, which makes more sense to me  Done
• What is the criteria for winning the "Pulitzer Speed Classic Trophy"? - I guess fastest plane, but how is that measured (different measurements produce different winners). Add a clause or sentence explaining it.
  • added criteria and speed  Done

Buhl and Verville

• "Buhl's aircraft broke a number of speed and endurance records" - I assume this is referrign specifically to the CA-3 Airster and have tweaked it accordingly. If not, please specify the plane(s) that set the records.
  • Is referring to CA-3 Airster for certain
• "Verville Aircraft produced the Verville Air Coach" - Is this the only aircraft the company made? That is how it reads at current, so if not please modify the sentence or expand the section.
  • Added Verville Sport Trainer, the other plane the company made, and added it to the list of planes  Done

Consulting and retirement

• What is meant by "Verville retired in 1961, but continued to support the field of aviation until his death in 1970"? Support is pretty vague and could mean a lot fo things
  • That sentence is a little cumbersome. So I decided to take it out altogether, since the sentence before it mentions he retired in 1961.  Question: Do we need to mention anything about his death in 1970 or is the lede and infobox mention of it adequate?
    • It should be mentioned in the body, as you have already done it seems.
• "and he was honored with ten Certificates or Letters of Commendation from the U.S. Armed Forces" - is this also in 1962 (doubtful). If not it should be its own sentence.
  • most likely the commendations and certs were when he was with the U.S. Army, so I made it its own sentence  Done
• "Verville held eight aeronautical patents" - seems out of place; perhaps a better spot can be found elsewhere in the article (what were the patents for?)
  • I looked it up and all his patents were between 1919 and 1922, which are the years he was at the army air service, so I moved that sentence and citation to that section  Done

Planes designed

• It would be nice to have the date of all planes instead of just some of them
  • Added dates for all plane models  Done
• "Most famous" seems a bit POV. I suggest changing those three bullet points into a paragraph "summarzing" the list below. There mention twice will make it clear they are the most important planes. (The R3 Racer is already mentioned in the other sections of the list; the same should be done for the others.)
  • removed this section altogether and summarized in paragraph format, let me know if this needs more work  Done

In summary, there are a lot of bullet points, but are all pretty minor points and should be easy to fix. Good work on the article to date. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THANK YOU for the great feedback! I will get started on updates starting tonight. Nasa-verve (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThaddeusB:  Done Okay, all items have been addressed and commented inline above. Nasa-verve (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great. I'll review the edits (and questions above) tomorrow. In the mean time, one last item for you: please add WP:Alt text to the images. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThaddeusB:  Done alt tags added to all images in page Nasa-verve (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple more points:

• Based on the quote, Verville clearly did eventually learn to fly. A single or two of explanation (something along the lines of "he attended flight school in X, but did not pursue it after a career" or whatever best explains the situation).
  •  Comment: I looked through all the material I have, and I have no information on him learning to fly. Its a mystery! I believe he never attended any type of flight schools, because they were inordinately expensive, something like the equivalent of $150k today. So only very rich folks could attend, and Verville was not rich like that. So it is possible that he never did, but I am speculating for certain.
• His commercial enterprises from 1925 to 1937 (i.e. founding two companies) should be mentioned in the lead in some form.  Done
• Ref 10 seems to be messed up; if intended as a footnote see Help:Footnotes. More likely, you just want to append the note to the end of the citation - put it outside the )) but inside the </ref>, perhaps in () or something. Also, the publisher should be the original publisher not archive.org.  Done
• The paraphrasing of [1] is too close to the original:
  • • Thanks for catching that. I do not believe I incorporated those sections of text, but my memory may fail me. Either way, I fixed it be rephrasing things a bit.  Done
  • Original: Verville was asked by General Mitchell to design an airplane for the Air Service entry in the 1922 National Air Races.

• Wikipedia: Verville was asked by General Mitchell to design an airplane for the U.S. Army Air Service's entry at the 1922 National Air Races

FIX: General Mitchell asked Verville to incorporate some of the European developments they had observed, such as the use of monoplanes over biplanes, and produce a plane for the U.S. Army Air Service's participation in the 1922 National Air Races.  Done

• Original: Verville designed the Verville-Sperry Racer. This plane was one of the first airplanes with retractable landing gear.

• Wikipedia (before I edited it yesterday): Verville designed the Verville-Sperry R-3 Racer, which was one of the first airplanes with retractable landing gear.

FIX: The resulting plane, the Verville-Sperry R-3 Racer, was the second plane to utilize retractable landing gear.  Done

• Original: The true importance of the Racer design was recognized in 1961, when it was selected as one of the twelve most significant aircraft of all time.

• Wikipedia (since removed in favor of original sentence elsewhere): The importance of the Racer was recognized by Popular Mechanics in June 1961, when it was selected as one of the twelve most significant aircrafts of all time

FIX: Not needed since other sentence varies greatly (In June 1961, it was honored as one of the twelve most significant aircrafts of all time by Popular Mechanics)  Done

The remaining example (the first one) needs fixed, but more importantly it raises concerns that there may be other close paraphrases, especially of the main source (ref 4) which I don't have access to. Can you please recheck your useof that source and fix any close paraphrasing?

 Comment: So my incorporation of the material from Ref 4 (Oral History) was only added yesterday (Wednesday, the 28th) and I was very careful to put everything in my own words and paraphrase. As you can see from my page number references, there is material gathered from across page 3 all the way to 18, so I am greatly summarizing what is said there. Let me know if you have any other additional questions about this. I had to go to a library and scan microfiche to get the source, but its a good one! :)  Done

--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThaddeusB: Thanks for such great comments! This article is going to be really GOOD. Again, my responses inline as before. Nasa-verve (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Your assurances re:close paraphrasing are good enough for me. It is quite possible the couple violations were added by someone else to begin with. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @ThaddeusB: Thanks so much for your help ThaddeusB! This process was a pure joy and really helped encourage me in my wikipedia journey. Unfortunately I've had some negative experiences as of late, but this is in great contrast to any of that. :) Nasa-verve (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It was a pleasure working you with. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Detected copyright issue was fixed; primary author has given assurances on no close paraphrasing to offline sources, which is accepted in good faith.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Included lists are an appropriate way to handle the planes Verville produced; highlights are contained in body of the article in prose form

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Forum source, while not technically reliable, is accepted for the ancestry details since it is not contentious no better source is available. If the information was omitted or left unreferenced, the article would not suffer, so there is no reason to penalize the article for its inclusion

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   No major omissions found in my independent research on the subject

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   It is my pleasure to promote Alfred V. Verville to good article status. If you plan to try for featured article status, I would recommend trying to expand the "Buhl and Verville Aircraft Companies" section as much as possible. "Consulting and retirement" may be a bit light as well, although harder to say on that one. If Verville had any notable interests outside airplanes, it wouldn't hurt to add a "Personal life" section as well. Collectively, that is the differences between "broad" coverage (GA) and "comprehensive" coverage (FA) in my opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]