Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Aircraft articles by quality/1

To do: The specs need to be formated to follow Template:Aircraft specifications (edit comment)

A=Former FA (edit comment)

Facts and Trivia section is longer than the Development section, most of the article is a discussion of the subvariants. There is too little information for A-class assessment -- read the criteria. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Rated B-class because it has the majority of the material needed for a completed article but needs a few things before it can go through GA or FA qualification. For example, following Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content, it has a history, but it needs expansion.

Needs:

• Sources
• Expanded history (edit comment)

I think this article lacks a lot of focus. Trying to conform to the WP:Air page content guidelines could solve that. There are a lot of good images, information and specifications to work with, but there is a serious lack of citing of sources other than wiki links. The development section seems to be coming along well, but the significant events of a history section about the aircraft's performance in operations is pretty much absent.(Born2flie 05:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)) (edit comment)

Does not cite sources, does not adhere to WP:MOS (intro too short, etc.) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Needs some more details on its development and service, and more citations to better sources. I have done a bit of rewriting. (edit comment)

I didn't rate it, but I've been editing this article. It is still missing a description of the Kiowa Warrior variant and an operational history. (Born2flie 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)) (edit comment)

Mid=Quote from the article,"The Pitts Special dominated world aerobatic competition in the 1960s and 1970s and even today, remains a potent competition aircraft in the lower categories." (edit comment)

Needs editing and "filling out". (Born2flie 21:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)) (edit comment)

I rated this article as a Start-Class. It isn't quite up to WP:Air standards for page content, and the Hughes 269/300 history, which is significant as Hughes' first commercially successful helicopter, is largely ignored in favor of addressing Schweizer. Still, there is a lot of information to work with. (Born2flie 02:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)) (edit comment)

• Sources
• according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content history can be divided into development, varients etc
• specifications need to be placed in {{Aircraft specifications}}
• trivia section should be deleted/merged into other text areas
• needs {{Aircontent}} (edit comment)