Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/Pratt & Whitney J52

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

Pratt & Whitney J52[edit]

I've spent a fair bit of time researching what I can about the engine, and I think I've really fleshed out the article, at least factually. I guess I'd like to know where to go next with the article, what to do to graduate it from start class, etc. Also what other information is needed (despite whether or not it can be found) to improve the quality of the article. Thanks! - SidewinderX (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comment on the article talk page, should be able to promote it soon. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With lots of work today the article is now B class, don't know if you want to push it further or close the review? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Born2flie[edit]

Peer review (this checklist is based off of the {{GAList}} example and incorporates some of the Featured article criteria as well)

Prose
a. well written: b. comprehensive: c. factually accurate: d. summary style:
Technical jargon needs to be clarified (low-bypass?). I think it will need a little bit more substance before progressing. Perhaps a little bit more about the selection for the aircraft programs and which engines it was competing against?
What section are you refering to about the technical jargon? I guess I'm a jet engine guy so I don't notice it, but I can try and work on that. SidewinderX (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the parentheses (low-bypass). I know it means something to jet engine people (sounds funny), but it says we have to spell it out for all the technically-challenged people (WP:TECHNICAL). I understand the concept, but neither this article nor the jet engine article explain the technical jargon. --Born2flie (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'm relatively new to the wikipedia editing scene, so I definitely could use guidance in situations like this. That said, "High Bypass Turbofan", "Low Bypass Turbofan", "Turbojet", etc., are fundamental descriptions of a jet engine. Explaining what each one of those means in each jet engine article seems, to me, to be silly. The jet engine article should definitely lay that out, I'll take a look at that later, but I guess I don't know what the best solution to this is. - SidewinderX (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the jet engine article did that and the term could be linked to a very good explanation of just what low-bypass is intended to mean, then I could accept it as is. Since the non-technical reader is left out in the wind, with no link to click on to have it explained to them, someone has to stick up for them. To me, low-bypass and high-bypass are technical descriptions used as classifications, not fundamental descriptions. Fundamental is the basics, which would be how the turbofan functions in the first place. The fan(s) in the front accelerate(s) a volume of air (high or low) through ducts that bypass the turbine in order to generate the thrust. --Born2flie (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After another look, I'm more confused. Both turbofan and turbojet are link to their respective articles in the introduction. Are you looking in another spot? And if you're looking in another spot, is the common practice to link every instance, or just the first instance? - SidewinderX (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was in relation to linking to low-bypass, so that a person with a less-technical background in engine design and function could click to actually learn about what low-bypass actually means, but the definition on jet engine and turbofan aren't really explanations of how they work, they're simply techno-babble regurgitations from a textbook or some similar source. --Born2flie (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, I see what you're saying. I have now changed the link to directly take the reader to the low bypass section of the turbofan article when clicking on the link. I know what doesn't address how technical the turbofan article is, but if we were to assume the low bypass section of the turbofan article was a decent explanation, does the new linking work better for you? - SidewinderX (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Born2flie (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References
a. use of inline citations: b. reliable sources: c. No original research:
Style
a. lead section: b. appropriate structure: c. conforms to WP:MOS:
Lead section is probably adequate, but if the article grows in size, consider at least a second paragraph (WP:LEAD). Reference for specifications template should be properly inserted into the template to remove excess whitespace.
Controversy
a. neutral point of view: b. stable, with no edit wars:
Not likely to be involved in edit wars.
Graphics
a. quality: b. image licenses:
image from Navy news is an odd dimension and quality is bad, consider resizing the thumbnail to give a better first look at the unique engine nozzles, or consider editing the image.
Quality:
Article classification:
It is sparse, but I'd agree with B-Class. --Born2flie (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.