Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gliding/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 23:05, 18 October 2010 [1].

Gliding[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Gliding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Jmcc150 and WikiProject Aviation

This article was promoted to FA in October 2006, and time has unfortunately done it no favors in terms of meeting the criteria. As so often happens here, referencing issues are the primary concern here:

  • Numerous sections are lightly referenced or completely uncited; the last section in the article is but one example of the latter.
  • The quality of the sources leaves something to be desired. I see at least one YouTube link (reference 28) and several personal pages (25, 39 and 41 among them).
  • The citations are almost all lacking names of publishers, and this leaves me wondering how many other questionable sources there are.
  • The link checker in the toolbox reveals about a dozen dead links, which is significant for an article with just over 50 total reference links.

Haven't reviewed the writing itself that closely, but the sourcing alone causes the article to fail modern FA criteria in my opinion. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a FA but update This review is a sledgehammer to fix a few referencing problems. There is no question about the content, format or language. These can be sorted out in a few days. The objection to a YouTube clip is curious feature of Wikipedia. Probably the best evidence that something is true is not a reference to a printed medium, but of a video of it actually happening. The degree of referencing is also something that is difficult to define. Is it sufficient to describe something in a paragraph with one reference that fully supports the contents of the paragraph? If there are little numbers against every sentence all to the same reference, is that better than one reference? Even so expect changes in the next few days, by which time the vote will not be relevant to the article as it then will be. JMcC (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delist are not declared in the FAR phase (see FAR instructions). This was not one of my better Supports at FAC: I was a newish reviewer then! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a longer job than I thought. My original estimate of just a few referencing problems was a little optimistic. However I am surrounded by books working my way through the sections bringing the references up to modern standards. JMcC (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I now need someone to point out where the references are still not good enough. JMcC (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like, I can leave cite tags in areas where referencing appears thin (let me know if this is exactly what you want, as a lot of editors don't like "tag-bombing"). The citing looks quite a bit better now, in volume and reliability, though there are a few formatting issues left over. For one, spaces between punctuation and references should be removed; I see several instances of that. In addition, I see some exposed code in the Thermals section (by reference 20) and in the details of reference 55. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Additional citations have now been added as requested. It was a useful exercise. JMcC (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran through the top: quite a few copy-edits were required, and in one place the tone was like a tourist brochure's. There are causality glitches such as the "thus" in "Powered aircraft and winches are the two most common means of launching gliders. These and other methods (apart from self-launching motor-gliders) require assistance from other participants.[6] Gliding clubs have thus been established to share airfields and equipment, train new pilots and maintain high safety standards." I see others, too. One in the lead I fixed ("ensured" that there were 50 thousand pilots ... was that some kind of five-year plan?). I think the whole article needs a serious run-through. Probably savable; can it be spruced up to avoid going to FARC? PS Images: the "gull wing" needs to be bigger, don't you think? It's detail-dependent. Try 250px? The Scimitar could be a piece of cotton stuck on my screen. What does the pic illustrate? Some of the other images are good; could I put in a suggestion that the Ventus 2b be on the right, too, to avoid sandwiching the text? There's nothing wrong in principle with all-right-side pics, unless it becomes utterly tedious to the reader. Tony (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can pages be provided for the books that are used? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opening image: it's very dark. Can it be brightened and re-uploaded?
  • Good gliding, then A Scimitar, images: why not both at the right: I suggest putting the syntax for both at the top, one after the other. This will optimise image positioning given that some users have HUGE wide windows, and others don't. Why not boost the size of both to 240px? Same for many of the others. Left–right looks messy.
  • "Power stations"—why linked? Tony (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern are citations, prose. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a couple of comments above in that page numbers are needed for the book references, and that copy-editing would be helpful. Also, an image review from someone here would be nice, to ensure there are no problems there. A lot of work has been done already to improve the article, and these fixes/checks would go a long way toward seeing this remain featured. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are page numbers really called for in style guidelines?? Unless the info being referenced is hidden in the middle of a page I feel that they would be superfluousPetebutt (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers are usually expected in inline citations. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The article is rather awkwardly written in many places, and in parts (such as Learning to glide) reads like a promotional brochure. A few examples of problems with the prose:
I have changed wording in each instance that has been cited. As I understand it the objective of a review is to ensure that Wikipedia has featured articles of the required standard. This can best be achieved by making modifications where there are weaknesses and then assessing the result. Clearly there can be hopeless cases, but there has been no indication that this article is beyond redemption. I would therefore query the validity of the "delist" opinion at this stage. As the promotional brochure in learning to glide, I would suspect that many people would not know how to begin or whether ordinary people rather than test pilots can do it. Surely the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to give information that people might find useful. I agree that gushing praise about the excitement, the wonderful views or the great club atmosphere would be out of place, but I can't see anything that fits that description. If there are other instances of excessive praise or poor wording, please give specific references. Those quoted so far have been most useful. It shows what a fresh "eye" can bring. More comments please. JMcC (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People may find all sorts of information useful, such as contact details for their local gliding club, but our aim is to write an encyclopedia, not a how-to manual. My "delist" vote is not cast in stone; if the article is sufficiently improved I will be quite willing to reconsider it. Let me know when you think you're done, but bear in mind that I just gave a few examples of the the kind of thing I'm talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the war, civilian gliding in Europe was largely suspended. Although some military operations in WWII involved military gliders, they did not soar and so are unrelated to the sport of gliding." That doesn't really make sense. This article is about the sport of gliding; military operations during WWII were clearly not carried out for sport, which is is why they're unrelated to the sport. It's got nothing to do with whether or not WWII military gliders soared or not.
Deleted the sentence
  • "Gliding did not return to the Olympics after the war, for two reasons: first, the shortage of gliders following the war ...". Awkward repetition ("after the war ... following the war").
Removed the second "following the war"
  • "In many countries during the 1950s a large number of trained pilots wanted to continue flying. Many were also aeronautical engineers." And no doubt many were not aeronautical engineers. Why is this relevant?
The war and cold war caused the training of many pilots compared with the 1930s, but gliding needs engineers to design, build, maintain and repair gliders. Sentence now expanded.
  • "The increased numbers of pilots, greater knowledge and improving technology helped set new records, so that the pre-war altitude record was doubled by 1950 ...". What is that "so that" doing here?
"so that" changed to "for example"
  • "Instead of Olympic competition there are the World Gliding Championships ...". Many, if not all, Olympic sports also have world championships; the two are not alternatives.
Changed wording
  • "6,703 pilots worldwide have registered for this contest in 2010." A sentence ought not to start with a number.
Changed wording
  • "Soaring pioneer Paul MacCready is usually credited with developing a mathematical theory for optimizing the speed at which to fly when cross-country soaring ...". It isn't a theory, mathematical or otherwise. It's a principle.
Changed
  • "On cross-country flights where strong lift is forecast ...". Can a flight be in a particular location, as implied by "where"?
changed "where" to "on days when"
  • The airspeed and glide ratio of paragliders are generally lower still than the averages found in hang gliders ...". Why "averages" in the plural? How can there be more than one average?
Two parameters can each have an average, nevertheless wording changed
In which case it ought to have said the "airspeed and glide ratios". Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 14:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist: criterion three issues are numerous:
    • File:LS40075.jpg - "Copyright owner confirmed to me personally that permission had been granted to use this image" is not sufficent. To use it where? Does that include permission to alter it? Needs OTRS ticket.
    • File:Bluesky2.jpg - Needs verifiable source per WP:IUP. (was Dwindrim just the uploader, or author as well?)
    • File:RidgeSrn.gif - Who is "I"? Dhaluza?
    • File:V20001.jpg - Needs verifiable source per WP:IUP. (Was Jmcc150 just the uploader, or author as well?)
    • File:OL0026.jpg - How can we verify permission? Was the permission to use everywhere and to alter freely?
    • File:SW0001.jpg - How can we verify permission? Was the permission to use everywhere and to alter freely?
    • File:Blanik 3 a.jpg - Needs a verifiable source. Эlcobbola talk 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note these issues are resolved or re-entered in new comments below. Эlcobbola talk 16:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The seven issues will be addressed. I am on vacation and so it will take a little while. One reason for a short delay is that the five of the images were taken by someone who was hit and killed when taking more photos of gliders. I will try to persuade the estate to amend the now outdated permissions. JMcC (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I" would normally refer to the signatory. What else could it possibly mean? Dhaluza (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is work going on this? It has been over a month since anything has been done to the article, and there are still unaddressed concerns listed above. Please feel free to ping Malleus, Elcobbola and the other reviewers when you feel you have addressed their concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. This has undoubtedly been improved but there's still a way to go. For instance, back in May, Tony1 drew attention to varous "causality glitches", such as the use of "thus" here, in the lead: "Powered-aircraft and winches are the two most common means of launching gliders. These and other methods (apart from self-launching motor-gliders) require assistance from other participants. Gliding clubs have thus been established to share airfields and equipment, train new pilots and maintain high safety standards."
  • "The United States and Canada provide examples of this." Examples of what?
  • "One of the measures of a glider's performance is the distance that it can fly for each meter it descends is expressed as its lift-to-drag ratio (L/D)." Doesn't make sense.
  • "The glider and the pilot(s) can be retrieved from the outlanding location using a purpose-built trailer. Alternatively, if the glider has landed in a suitable place, a tow-plane can be summoned to re-launch the aircraft (as long as the property owner gives permission)." Still reads like a How-to manual in several places.
  • The Aerobatics section isn't talking about aerobatics at all, but about aerobatics competitions.
  • "Gliders, unlike hang gliders and paragliders, surround the pilot with a strong structure, so most accidents cause no injuries: but there are some hazards." Strange punctuation.
  • "People over 193 cm (6’ 4’’) will also have problems." Why "also"? Who else will have problems?
  • "The height gained from a winch is usually less than from an aerotow (about 1,700–2,000 feet) ...". The article has been using metric units elsewhere.
  • "Each year many other people experience their first glider flight because many clubs actively seek new members and can generate income by giving trial flights." Another causality glitch.

After three months here, there just shouldn't be problems like these still in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just returned from three weeks gliding in the Alps. All suggestions are gratefully received and I will make the suggested changes. The photo permissions are being addressed and replacement photos will be added tomorrow. JMcC (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested amendments made and photos replaced where there were queries, subject to two OTRS requests "in the post". JMcC (talk)
  • Keep for now. I am seeing good improvements to the article. No additional comments about it. JJ98 (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All suggestions now implemented. No further comments have been received for two weeks. JMcC (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - all but one of the previous issues were addressed, but new issues have been introduced:
    • File:RidgeSrn.gif - "I" is not sufficient. See WP:IUP for what constituents acceptable sourcing. If Dhaluza indeed took it, as is presumably the case, change it to "Dhaluza took this picture" and the issue will be resolved. We can't rely on a self-license template. Note, also, that exporting this article (e.g. the "create a book" function) will export only "I took this photograph" with no mention of the uploader, thus breaking the required (GFCL/CC) attribution. This is why specificity matters.
      • Contacted Dhaluza again. He did respond to confirm he was the "I" in question, see above, but he is an infrequent contributor. I have put a request on his user page, but look for an alternative.
        • If Dhaluze has confirmed that he was the "I" in question, you can add this to the picture. Just link to the discussion in your edit summary. Dana boomer (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:GoldenMedows.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (it says uploaded by PiccoloNamek - did they also take the photo?)
      • I have a replacement photo, but I left the camera in the glider yesterday. Will be replaced after next weekend.
          • Image now replaced JMcC (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Glider in flight.JPG - Needs a verifiable source. Uploader (Dtom) is not "Aero Club". How can we verify "Aero Club" has freely licensed this image?
      • An OTRS confirmation was sought but no progress. I will source a replacement
        • Image now replaced JMcC (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JMcC (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • File:Bungylaunch1.jpg - Unclear sourcing. Is Jmcc150 the same person as Jon Hall? If not, how can we verify permission from Jon Hall?
      • I will have another go at this one. Vacations are not a good time for contacting people quickly. (Later note: old e-mail address was used on first attempt)
    • File:3 diamenty.jpg - Derivative work. What is the copyright status of the badge?
      • The gull logo that is used by most national gliding associations was devised in the 1920s by a German called Fritz Stamer. It never appears with a copyright, registered or trademark symbol and there is no evidence that it ever was copyrighted, though proving a negative is always difficult. For example it appears in the Soaring Society of America web site, on the German gliding organisation's web site and on the Australian site. The International Gliding Commission of the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale has its own logo and does not issue the physical badges. As far as I can see no-one owns the copyright for the logo. I believe the rules fair use and public domain cover this. A request on the Media Copyright questions page went unanswered.
    • File:CAP L-23 N381BA.jpg - Source is a direct link to the image. Where can we verify federal authorship? Эlcobbola talk 16:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image replaced
  • Keep, if the above image issues are addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Light at the end of the tunnel! Messages have been sent out today to all the uploaders of the images queried by User:Эlcobbola to clarify the status of these images. Many were in Commons and so I thought they were safe, but even then there are pitfalls. JMcC (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding File:CAP L-23 N381BA.jpg, I can only comment that the license should be correct, in that it was taken by a Civil Air Patrol member in the course of the course of their duties. I uploaded it and feel confident that the license is correct, but if it is felt this is not good enough, then remove it from the article and request deletion on Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pity. Photo replaced, though if you can get clearer permission, it will be re-instated. JMcC (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is work going on this? It has been 10 days since anything happened on the article. The image issues need to be addressed, and then the article can be kept as an FA. Dana boomer (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have put a status report against each photo in question. If there are no replies in the next two weeks, and I have not found replacements, then I suggest that this article's FA status is removed. I would prefer this to losing some of these photos. JMcC (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks above like you will be able to replace or source most of them. Is there any particular one that you are so against losing that you would rather see the article's FA status removed? Also, please see my comment on the Dhaluza image above. Dana boomer (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Lede/intro does not conform to WP:LEAD, does not adequately stand-alone as a summary of the entire article's contents. Lede/intro is also choppy, and consists of short-paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs. There are one-sentence-long-paragraphs and short-paragraphs and quite short subsections throughout the article - these should either be merged or expanded. Subsections Challenges for the gliding movement and Related air sports could both be significant expanded quite a bit, especially to deal with issues of comprehensiveness for an FA. Relevant portals could be added to See also sect, and perhaps this could be split into two columns, for style formatting. -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is never ending. There are two OTRS permissions due on two images, which should appear shortly. Otherwise I have met all previous suggestions. I am not going to spend any more time on this, especially to meet the latest points. Delist if you want. JMcC (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you could ask Cirt what he thinks needs to be included in the two sections he mentions to make the article comprehensive? The rest of the things are easily done, and should not discourage you from working to help this article be kept as a FA. Dana boomer (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't know about the expansion, but I've copyedited or combined all one-sentence paragraphs. I also removed a broken reference (just empty braces) and a couple other very minor fixes. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Challenges for the gliding movement only uses one source. It is formatted as a bullet list. This just seems rather unprofessional for an article purportedly of FA quality. Related air sports could incorporate much more material from the articles and topics it glosses over and links to - it only uses three sources to speak rather broadly about a wide array of areas. -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK I have expanded the intro to cover more of the whole article. The challenges section needs still some work to track down every reference needed. I am beginning to regret adding this section five years ago! As the treasurer of a gliding club I can see the challenges and trends but concrete references are harder. I would query the need to include more material from related air sports. The article is about gliding not hang gliding or paragliding. However I have provided a better link to a detailed comparison of gliders with hang gliders and paragliders. JMcC (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please bear with me. I have the British Gliding Association digging out material for references on the challenges section. JMcC (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards Keep' - once the image issues above have been resolved, I do not see problems with the prose which warrant delisting, although improvements could be made. Jan 1922 (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. As far as I can see I just have the bungee launch photo to sort out, but let me know if there are other problems. Second attempt just made to contact the photographer. He may have deleted previous request as spam. If no luck in a few days, I will put out a call for other pictures on the UK newsgroup. JMcC (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How this going? Any progress on the images? There are two dead links in the article that needs to be fixed. JJ98 (Talk) 07:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in the posting above, as far as I can see I just have the copyright on the bungee launch photo to sort out. Which are the two dead links? Is there an easy way to detect them? JMcC (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a toolbox at the top of this review page (the specific subpage that the Gliding review is on). One of the links says "external links". Click on this and it will run an analysis of all external links in the article and tell you which ones are dead. Dana boomer (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almost all problems have been resolved. I believed it is time to close this FA Review. I believe that JMcC can address few remaining problems later. Ruslik_Zero 16:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I worked on a bit of copyediting earlier in the week, and now cannot really find any outstanding issues to address - which tells me that this very, very long review (Gliding went to FARC in June!) has resulted in a much better article that seems to meet the FA criteria. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional closing note: This article has been at FAR for over four months, and there is no consensus to delist (there is actually a consensus to keep, with a few minor outstanding details). If the dissenting editors feel that the issues warrant further action, the discussion can be carried to the talk page. If the issues are not fixed and are felt to be severe enough, the article can be brought back to FAR in a minimum of three months. Dana boomer (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Gliding/archive1&oldid=1089082615"