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

Nominator: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 15:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 22:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks one of a number of submissions.by Amitchell125 of Supermarine aircraft. It looks very close to meeting the Good Article criteria and I look forward to reviewing it. simongraham (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125, @Simongraham, what's the status? Looks like we're waiting on a fix for 3a? No rush, I'm just checking in on outstanding entries for the March backlog drive. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it again today, after a deliberate pause. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: How are you progressing please? I see there have been a number of edits by other editors in the interim, but I will wait for you to say before reviewing again. simongraham (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on it, will ping you anon. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

• The article is of significant length, with 1,342 words of readable prose.
• The lead s reasonable at 186 words.
• 36.5% of authorship is by Amitchell125, 15.4% by Ian Dunster with another 75 other contributors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.
• Suggest adding a main template link to Supermarine Seafang. Y Done. AM
• Suggest it is worth adding a comment on other aircraft that used the Spiteful's wing (e.g. the Type 391). Y Done. AM

Assessment[edit]

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • Language used generally seems appropriate.
   • Correct the spelling of "conra-rotating". Y Done. AM
   • Remove superfluous the from "future of high-performance fighters was clearly with the jet-engined aircraft". Y Done. AM
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar issues.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • The Variants section is a table rather than prose. Y Done. AM

   • I feel that is a much better layout. Please add some prose, which will also help mark the citations; I think something between Supermarine Sea King and Supermarine Spitfire would be reasonable.

   • Move the section on Seafang to Variants. Y Done. AM
   • Supermarine Attacker is a duplicate link. Y Done. AM
   • The layout is otherwise consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style, including a nice infobox and specification.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Spot checks conform Andrews & Morgan 1981 and Butler 2004.
   • The edition of Quill linked has a 2010 publication date. The chapter on the Spiteful starts on page 413. Y Sorted. AM
   • WP:AGF for the offline sources.

   it contains no original research;

   • The sentence "Discussions with the French firm SNCAC to produce the Spiteful under licence were abandoned when France commenced production of its own jet engines." in the lead is not featured in the body where it would be referenced. Y Text removed, as no citation found. AM
   • The fact the there was a "modification to the mounting of the engine to tilt it down slightly for better visibility over the nose" is not supported by a source. Suggest adding this to section that states "The Spitfire's fuselage was redesigned to improve the pilot's forward view" with a relevant reliable source. Y Text removed, as no citation found. AM

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 59.9% chance of copyright violation, which means it is is possible. The largest similarity is with a page on Hush-kit[[1]] from 2015. The discussion has considerable close-phrasing to the Background section, including "A new wing has been designed for the Spitfire with the following objects: 1) To raise as much as possible the critical speed at which drag increases, due to compressibility, become serious. 2) To obtain a rate of roll faster than any existing fighter. 3) To reduce wing profile drag and thereby improve performance." Y Done. AM

   • Excellent work. This is now reported as 9.9%.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • Key facts, like the name of the designer and production figures are missing. A brief literature search identified a wide range of potential sources for these and other useful facts. There are a number of references to the Spiteful in other books, including page 48 of Bowyer's Supermarine Spitfire[[2]], pages 200 onwards of Butler's British Experimental Combat Aircraft of World War II[[3]], pages 252 to 255 of Roussel's book on Joe Smith[[4]] and page 210 of Smith's British Built Aircraft: South West & Central Southern England[[5]], that would enhance the article.

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

   • The article is compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The text seems clear and neutral.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The infobox image is marked as public domain.
   • The other image has a relevant CC license.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • All images show the aircraft.

@Amitchell125: Excellent work. Please take a look at more comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[edit]

@Amitchell125: Thank you for your work so far. Sorry to do this, but there are quite a few things remaining, although most of them should be quite quick to complete:

• The lead is three short paragraphs. The general guideline is no more than two paragraphs unless the article is longer than 15,000 words, so I suggest combining them as one, especially as the second paragraph is particularly short. Y Done AM
• Please remove the superfluous comma in "it had a radical new wing design to allow safe operations at higher speeds, and a revised inwards-retracting undercarriage" and in "the British Air Ministry asked Supermarine to devise a new wing for the aircraft, and to incorporate a laminar flow wing section in the new design". Y Done AM
• The statement "Specification 470 described how the wing had been designed with a straight taper to simplify production and to achieve a smooth and accurately-made shape." is unsourced. Suggest amending to "Specification 470 described that the wing had been designed with a straight taper to simplify production and more easily achieve a smooth and accurately-made shape." Y Uncited text removed, as source not found. AM
• Consider removing the hyphen in "ground-handling" and linking to Aircraft ground handling. Y Done AM
• Move the commas in "The Air Ministry was impressed by the proposals, and in February 1943 issued Specification F.1/43 for a single-seat fighter with a laminar flow wing" to "The Air Ministry was impressed by the proposals and, in February 1943, issued Specification F.1/43 for a single-seat fighter with a laminar flow wing". Y Sorted AM
• The sentence "The construction contract for the prototypes had been placed in February." follows a comment that the specification was issued in February 1943. Please clarify the pluperfect. Y Text cut. AM
• Amend "Supermarine were" etc as Supermarine is singular. Y Done AM
• Amend "Flight testing showed that performance was better than equivalent Spitfire but not as expected and anything (including splashes of mud or dead insects)". Suggest "Flight testing showed that performance was better than that of the equivalent Spitfire, but not as good as expected, and anything (including splashes of mud or dead insects)". Y Done AM
• Remove the comma in "NN664, first flew on 8 January 1945". Y Done AM
• Move "Nonetheless, the wing was judged suitable for jet aircraft and was fitted to the Supermarine Type 392." to the section on Further development. Y Done AM
• Amend "over-confidence" to "overconfidence". Y Done AM
• Suggest adding comma in "from Mitchell's original design, though grassroots". Y Done AM
• Remove the superfluous comma from "decided to name the Spitfire XXI, Valiant, provided the Admiralty agreed". Suggest "decided that the Spitfire XXI would be named Valiant, provided the Admiralty agreed". Y Done AM
• Amend "After Supermarine objected to Valiant, and said that the name should start with the letter S, the name Spitfeful - proposed by Portal from a list of names circulated - was accepted". Suggest "However, Supermarine objected to Valiant as the name did not start with the letter S. A list of potential names was circulated and Spiteful, proposed by Portal, was accepted." Y Done AM
• Complete the table with the Weight of the F Mk 16. Not sure. Already done? AM
  • Yes. Thank you.
• Please take a look at the dashes in the table and amend in light of MOS:DASH. Y Done AM
• Consider moving Further development below Service. Potentially rename it Legacy and including any memorials or relevant artefacts in museums. Y Done, but no information about memorials, etc.is available. AM
• Suggest replacing "The other two E.10/44 prototypes were adapted for naval trials (and known as "Hooked Jet Spitefuls") with "The other two E.10/44 prototypes were adapted for naval trials with the name "Hooked Jet Spitefuls". Y Done AM
• The rest of the paragraph "after much deliberation" the Admiralty ordered it. As their first jet fighter, the Supermarine Attacker, had a short career with the Royal Navy during the 1950s, but served with the Pakistan Air Force until 1964." do not make sense. Please amend. For example, I suggest stating that the Hooked Jet Spiteful became the Supermarine Attacker (wikilinked), that it served as the RN's first jet fighter, with a cited service entry date, and that the Spiteful's legacy lasted in service until 1964. Y Done AM
• Correct "NN667 was there February -June 1946". Suggest "NN664 was delivered for official trials at Boscombe Down in June 1945, followed by NN667 between February and June the following year". Y Done AM

@Amitchell125 Good luck. Please ping me if you have any questions or when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Thanks for the above, and for your work. Please note however that according to WP:GAN/I#R3 it is not expected that you get too involved in directly improving the article yourself, and as the nominator I would rather you advise me, and make suggestions, whilst leaving me to do the work involved. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: Absolutely. That is why I restricting my comments to this page and have not edited the article myself. I note that another editor, GraemeLeggett, has been editing the article at the same time as this nomination, including adding a ((clarify)) tag today. Another user, WendlingCrusader, also completed some edits earlier this month. They also had a discussion on the Talk page that may be useful, although does not seem to be directly related to the GA criteria. This may be the source of some of the confusion. I also can see more than 50 edits by you and GraemeLeggett in the last 12 hours. This level of instability may put the article at risk of failure under Criteria 5. How would you like to proceed? simongraham (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Thanks for the above, if GL could leave me to complete the GAN, that might help. The multiple edits by me is because I work on articles bit by bit, whilst others make one big save. I should be able to address your comments relatively quickly now, as my wife's train is delayed a few hundred miles away. :) Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: @Amitchell125: My focus is editing the article so there are no "who?" "why?" or "how?" questions left for the reader and the narrative flows coherently. The only issues I see appearing in the review appear to be grammatical or stylistic ones. I'll just say here that "Legacy" implies memorials, and the content of the section is definitely further development planned or attempted of Spiteful wing contemporaneous to the Spiteful. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above issues sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: That looks excellent. I have reverted a couple of changes, which I think may have caused by edit conflicts, undertook some minor fixes to the punctuation, footnotes and links, and combined the Production and Service sections to simplify the narrative. Although this is strictly outside the GA review, I feel it supported your editorial aims and did not jeopardise the integrity of the article. Thanks to all your work, I believe the article meets the criteria to be a [Wikipedia:Good article|Good Article]]. simongraham (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pass simongraham (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]