Talk:Radioplane RP-77

RP-77 vs RP-77D

The move to RP-77D, and the use of Infobox Weapon instead of Infobox Aircraft, were both proposed and discussed as part of the B-class assessment on the WP:MILHIST assessments page. And I don't think the page author moving the page himself within a day of creating it qualifies as a "undiscussed move". ;) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, it was discussed. My bad. It's a missile, but the article's creator called it an aircraft - be sure he corrects that! ;) - BilCat (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He certainly will. ;) And no worries! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an aircraft dont see why it should be classed as a weapon, as far as I am aware most drones on wikipedia are treated as aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

*quacks* The RP-77 is kinda borderline between "aircraft" and "missile", IMHO - similar 'aircraft' seem to have been earlier designated as aircraft, but later ones were given xQM-XX designations. This one straddled the borderline temporally (and the Army didn't resolve the issue by designating it as anything!). IMHO the Infobox Weapon, er, infobox looks better on the page than Infobox Aircrft in this case. I'm open to either, though. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Propellor drones anyway. Forgive me for being dense, but where do I find the previous discussion? Once I've read the discussions, I'll consider a move proposal, and discuss restoring the Aircraft infobox, if I feel that's still warranted. (Perhaps the old discussion will change my mind - I won't know till I've read it. I'd sure like to see the reasoning behind using RP-77D - we don't generally do that for aircraft or missiles.) - BilCat (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff (since assessments get cleared off the page in a hurry). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Just as note so I dont forget the RP-77 bit is a radioplane model number rather than any military designation. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've read the assesment. I think the argument on the name is weak, especially since we usually use the main designation when the variants all use "variations" of it, both with missiles and aircraft. As to missile vs. aircraft, it's probably a matter of preference, as it is a bit of both. I still lean toward aircraft in its case, though it's not worth a big dispute (why I reverted myself - I'm trying to cut back on disputes!) - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the infobox either way; as for the name, if it's alright, then I'm fine with it being at the non-D page name. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Most missiles are also technically 'aircraft'; Classification of the Radioplane RP-77 is very much up to opinion, the Radioplane fits the definition of an aeroplane and a missile (although it is not a weapon). I suggested using Template:Infobox weapon in B-class review because it looks cleaner and allows for more fields to be represented and displayed on a glance; although as a side-effect it does create some inconsistency with other articles on similar drone aircraft. Really I don't mind too much which template is used. What would really resolve the problem, would to be to create an a template as aircraft infobox component that include the details of Template:Aircraft specifications or Template:Aircraft specs. -- Aeonx (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Radioplane RP-77D/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   This is a bit long, please break it up: Making extensive use of glass-polyester plastic construction,[2][3] the RP-77D was launched using a rocket-assisted take-off system consisting of four Loki rockets, was fitted with a radio control apparatus, and, with the assistance of radar tracking, could be operated at a considerable distance from its launching point. The conversion template defaults to British spellings, and you were mixing up Brit and American English. I fixed it by adding |sp=us to the template. I'd advise that you fix any of your other articles up for GA that have this issue.

•  Done. I'll try to pay better attention to the type of English used, I use pretty much "classical southern American English" in normal useage so sometimes I slip. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Very little in the infobox is sourced in the main body. Best thing to do is to write a descriptive paragraph covering all that info w/relevant cites.

•  Done. Somehow the Specifications section, which had the refs, got deleted - I've restored it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• The citation from the Aeronautical Journal lacks detail. Need page and issue #, plus place of publication. Was there no article title?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• I can add the page number and a Google Books link, but issue and article title...those may be harder. The Google Books entry only has a snippet view. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• You might try searching using different terms; I've sometimes had good luck with that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll see if I can get anything done over the holiday. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Done, was able to add additional detail to the ref, appears it was printed as a complete year's worth of issues. No evidence of an article title can be found, but I did find enough to verify it, I hope. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Do you know the designations of the engines used in the first four prototypes? What was the date of its first flight? What exact model is shown in the infobox? What's the function of the tip tanks in that picture?

• Partially done. Found the type of Lycoming engine in the -77A/C, but nothing on what kind of McCulloch engine. Working on the rest.

•  Done. There aren't any sources I can find saying what the McCulloch engine was, just that it was a four-cylinder. Might be the O-100, but I can't prove it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Thanks for the review. I'll get to work on this as soon as I can - there may be a bit of a delay as home internet is being off-and-on at the moment. But I'll get things fixed up ASAP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)