Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arado E.381

Arado E.381

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel (again ) that this article meets the citeria. Please be especially thorough in looking through this article, I plan to take it to FAC directly after promotion. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A1 passes citation consistency and completeness of research. Mea culpa Maxima, excuse me while I get new eyes. I was completely wrong when I said: Oppose on A1Same reason as the last two times, and the material supplied in September appears to have fallen out of the article (M Renneberg, M Walker (2003) Science, technology, and national socialism). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ??? What is the problem with this article that you're talking about? M Rennenberg and M Walker is use already, but under the name Albrecht (it says so in the biblography). Albrecht is currently Ref 4. Ref 4 is used in key spots, so why would that be a problem? WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many apologies for my blindness. When you take this to FAC, please ping me so I can comment, and especially do so if you find you have difficulty with complaints about depth of research. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - [grin] Well, I think that is the first support; I didn't take time to researche the archives. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(s)
- Your images need alt text. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alt text added.
- "It was intended to be launched from a carrier aircraft to Allied aircraft but none were ever completed." When you say none, are we talking about the carrier ship or the Arado E.381? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Arado E,381. I will reword that sentence. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine was planned to be used to power the airplane[3] after being carried aloft by its jet-powered Arado Ar 234 mother ship." If this is the same mother ship eluded to in the previous sentence why not make mention of it there? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 22:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was intended to be launched from a carrier aircraft, the jet-powered Arado Ar 234, to Allied aircraft but no E.381s were ever completed." Now it sounds like the Nazi Air Force would be launching to this vehicle to assist Allied forces, not launching the plane against allied forces. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was intended to be launched from a carrier aircraft, the jet-powered Arado Ar 234, to attack Allied aircraft but no E.381s were ever completed." This is now wordy and reads awkwardly, so how about something more like "Had the Arado E.381 been completed it would have been launched from the Arado Ar 234 carrier aircraft to attack Allied aircraft, but plane was (canceled before completed, incomplete at the end of the war...)." TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done again WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine was planned to be used to power the airplane[3] after being carried aloft by its mother ship.[1]" If I was the plane and was introducing myself to a pilot I do not think my planned engine would part of my suit, smile, or firm handshake. Understandably, that would be material better left body of the interview. I would recommend removing this section from the lead then so that the article's introduction will appear more businesslike to passers by. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 17:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with removing the rocket model number, but I restored "with a rocket engine" because that seemed like a key point ... feel free to revert, either of you. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ for now. Sorry Wikicopter, but I still can't support this article's promotion. As with the previous nomination I'm concerned that the article's wording about the level of development this design reached is unclear and doesn't make it clear that this never progressed beyond mock up stage and didn't fly. Text like "The Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine powered the airplane" and "full production of the aircraft was canceled before any could be used on the battlefield" is confusing, for instance. This isn't that big a deal to change - all you need to do is tweak the wording (eg, to something like "The Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine would have powered the airplane" and "no aircraft of this design were ever completed"). I hope that this is helpful - if you'd like I could have a go at tweaking the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those copyedits would be strongly appreciated.
  - OK, I've copy edited the article - what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good. What do you think? You are the reviewer...
Support My concerns are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aside from Nick's phrasing concerns, the third pearagraph under 'development' bugs me. Is it really necessary to have the names of the books being referred to in the prose? That bugs me somewhat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They were added previously in response to a prior review, see the other reviews for more information. It also bugs me; if you have anything instead in mind, ping me. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 01:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it seems Dank took care of that. ;) But I do have one other concern: "...None of the designs were ever realized, though some wooden airframes and a single mockup were constructed...". I think "though" should be "although"? And "realized" sounds a little awkward, although I'm not sure if there is a better wording there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Though" seems okay to me. Oxforddictionaries.com says: "In formal writing, although tends to sound better than though as the opening word of a sentence." (But they also say that though is "less formal"; I don't know that guide well enough to know what that means.) It's the same in AmEng, I think, and the word isn't the first in the sentence here. "Realized" was mine; I meant it in the sense of "made real", but you have a point that maybe not everyone will get that. I didn't like "constructed" because you don't actually construct a design, you construct something per a design. Anyone have a better word? - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just made some copyedits that I hope are acceptable. The phrase "According to Arado..." sticks out. Does it refer to the book on the defunct manufacturer? Rumiton (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 01:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then that should be made clearer. Rumiton (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - How? I already think it is clear enough. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The 4th usage of Arado in the lead is, "According to Arado..." To me this implies that the Arado company is still functioning, and their advice was sought for the article. Rumiton (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC) (That would make the source a primary one.) Rumiton (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I was defintely not paying attention to this comment. I think that Arado stated this previously, and the data found its way into the article via the book. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I made edits where I thought they were necessary. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: an informative but succint article in my opinion. My only point relates to the way you refer to you sources in the prose. I personnally wouldn't do it and think you should consider rewording, however I am aware of no policy which prevents this, so its really a question of editorial judgement. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There are still a few phrases that make me grimace, but I've failed this article at FAC and at A-class previously, and everyone likes the article now, so per WP:DICK, I'll leave it alone. It's a great improvement. - Dank (push to talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dissenting views are allowed, Dank. I'd be interested to see what I missed. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see what I can do. Copyediting now; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the man in the cockpit" was inside a quotation. I see a copy editor inserted the "the", but if that wasn't in the original, then it should be "[the]". - Dank (push to talk) 04:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be equating the frontal cross section with the fuselage cross section in the first paragraph; can I just say frontal cross section? - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The sources state that ...": This is Wikipedia jargon; I've deleted it. - Dank (push to talk)
"Germany's Secret Weapons in World War II states that "nothing came of the idea", while Arado, History of an Aircraft Company says "the Projekt E.381 was never built" and Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Ground Attack and Special Purpose Aircraft says "construction of a mock-up and a small number of unpowered wooded airframes for the purpose of providing prone pilot training was started." Germany's Secret Weapons in World War II states that prototypes were designed in 1944 but no production of completed aircraft took place.": I'm really not clear what's going on here. Normally, you shouldn't say who said what unless there's disagreement and you're trying to be clear about the dispute ... but the best I can tell, these authors aren't contradicting each other. So, I removed the attribution ... but feel free to revert or discuss if there's something I'm not seeing. - Dank (push to talk)
Support per standard disclaimer. I see above that people were struggling with the lead; I think it reads better now, but you be the judge. Here is the before and after. - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree, I think it reads better now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Dank. What would articles read like grammar-wise without you? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 17:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks kindly, I never know how it's going to be received when I muck around with someone's prose. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.