Wikipedia:Peer review/Supermarine Spitfire/archive3
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a very significant topic about WW2 and it would be great to make this into an A-class article.
Thanks, Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi! I'm not really that good at reviewing other articles, but I think if you'd like to get this to FA or A-class, the first thing you should do is fix the citation needed tags. Also like you said at my Tracer peer review request, make sure there are alt text for the images. I'm not sure if there's any other things you should tweak, it looks all good aside from those minor issues.
- Good luck with the article! Best wishes Soulbust (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Comments: G'day, aircraft topics aren't my forte, but I grew up reading about the Spitfire and the Hurricane, so this piqued my interest. I didn't take a long look, but one thing struck me as potentially incorrect: "The Spitfire also served in the Pacific Theater. During the Malaya campaign in defense of Singapore, the Spitfire met its match in the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero." As far as I'm aware, the Spitfire did not serve in Malaya during World War II. It did, of course, though fight over Darwin. I would also argue that the article should use British English spelling given the topic. Per the above, I would also echo the need for more citations. For A-class, each paragraph will need to end with a citation. Anyway, good luck and thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Attempted to fix these myself with these edits: [1]. If I've got it wrong, please feel free to adjust as necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Added a little about the type's heavy losses over Darwin largely due to fuel capacity. [2] Also, there appear to be a few "citation needed" tags that will need to be dealt with prior to taking the article to ACR or FAC. I can confirm the point about Piece of Cake as I have read the book and seen the series, but as yet haven't been able to find a ref. Will keep looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have found a ref for this now: [3]. There are still a couple more citation needed tags, though, which I can't find refs for. If anyone can help, that would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Added a little about the type's heavy losses over Darwin largely due to fuel capacity. [2] Also, there appear to be a few "citation needed" tags that will need to be dealt with prior to taking the article to ACR or FAC. I can confirm the point about Piece of Cake as I have read the book and seen the series, but as yet haven't been able to find a ref. Will keep looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Comments: Hi, I have had a read in response to the posting on the Milhist page. Again, aircraft aren't my thing. The first thing I notice is that it tends to use long sentence structures which reduce readability. Readability would be enhanced by a bit of copy-editing. I have made a few edits along these lines. Listing notable pilot: " Alan Deere (17 e/a)". The meaning of "e/a" is not made clear. There are also style guide issues I have seen: use of rank abbreviations, use of full name after first occurrence, overuse of capitals, links and over-linking. I suspect that there are more. While I am not suggesting it is badly written, these issues should be addressed in an A-class article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)