Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Supermarine S.4/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2023 [1].

Supermarine S.4[edit]

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about R'J. Mitchell's revolutionary and beautiful-looking aircraft, designed as an entrant for the 1925 Schneider Trophy competition, but which crashed during navigation trials prior to the contest. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Supermarine_S.4_monoplane.jpg: when and where was this first published and where is the CC tag coming from?

@Nikkimaria: I have thought it easier to replace the image in the infobox (having spent ages trying to understand the correct tag for it). Hopefully this works. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the new image was published in 1925, suggest adding PD-US. Ditto the others from the same source. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:S.4_being_built_at_the_Supermarine_works.png: where is the CC tag coming from?

@Nikkimaria: I have replaced the templates with what I think are now the correct ones, please let me know if they are now appropriate. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The UK tag now in use requires that you "specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". The US tag requires a publication date well before the given source - where is it believed to have been published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent some time looking, I have been to find the information you require, and so have removed the image. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto File:Henri_Biard_and_R.J._Mitchell_in_front_of_the_Supermarine_S.4.png, File:1925_Schneider_Trophy_competition_at_Bay_Shore_Park,_USA.jpg

I have amended the text in the Biard/Mitchell photograph to say that a cropped version of it was published in 1925, so the larger image was available then.

I have replaced the tag and added what I believe is the right additional information. If the licences/information for these images is still not correct, please point me in the direction of someone who can help get them sorted! Amitchell125 (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Supermarine_S.4_(film).png needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please advise if still more is needed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, particularly with regards to purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I think the images are now sorted. Am I right? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"he saw the three previous" - sentence starts without a capital
"The S.4 was the first" - conversely this is in the middle of a sentence so shouldn't have one
"which created a sensation in the when" - think there's a word missing here
"The windy conditions had however blown" => "The windy conditions had, however, blown"
"Mitchell, who was on board that rescued Biard" - again, think there's at least one word missing here
Don't think all the "see also"s are needed, especially the S5 which is already linked in the prose. They are also all linked in the template at the bottom
That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done, but the See also section in these kind of articles tends to include a superfluous list of aircraft listed elsewhere in the text (I agree with you that the section wasn't needed). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by The person who loves reading[edit]

This article is well-written: professional writing.
This article is comprehensive: contains only major facts.
This article is well-researched: lots of reliable sources.
This article is neutral: from a neutral point of view.
This article is stable: no recent edit wars.
I have already fixed some little grammar mistakes.
Support The person who loves reading (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review... Copyedited so let me know if you have any concerns there. My only outstanding query at this stage is re. The S.5 was given a smaller fuselage cross section, and more streamlined floats, modifications which provided it with estimated increases in speed over its predecessor -- "Estimated increases" sounds odd, generally one would expect a figure to follow this; do we mean it was designed to be faster than the S.4? (Obvious one would think). Then again, why would any increase in speed be estimated only? If the S.5 flew faster than the S.4's highest recorded speed then that would be that, wouldn't it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Text now (hopefully) clarified. The large number of modifications introduced in the design of the S.5 to improve its performance meant that the effect of a single modification would not have been precisely known, hence estimated. However, the sentence as previously written didn't make proper sense. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks AM, I think you've taken care of that concern. I'm leaning support but will await the results of the source review (which I could possibly undertake myself but can't promise) and confirmation the image queries are resolved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review[edit]

The sources are known to me as highly reliable.
I would suggest that "|name-list-style=amp" be added to the templates of all multi-author works to be consistent with how the References section formats such works, but that's not a requirement.

Done. AM

Bibliography is properly formatted.
References section is properly formatted.
Spotchecked the references to Flight; no issues found.
As an aside, I've been mourning the loss of Flight's back issues since they were removed from the magazine's website a few years ago. It never occurred to me to check on their availability in the Internet Archive. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments[edit]

Do the sources explain in greater detail what exactly made the S.4 so revolutionary? Both the cantilever wing and the seami-monocoque construction of the fuselage had been pioneered in the previous decade by German and French designers. I suspect that these developments were mostly ignored and the S.4 was revolutionary only in a British context.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, thanks for your support, Sturmvogel 66. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources agree the design was revolutionary, and suggest this was in a Schneider Trophy, rather than a British, context. Legacy section expanded slightly to reflect this. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.