Talk:Flypast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force

Flypast was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-02-15

Contents 1 Article scope 2 Military History Project Assessment Scale Rating 3 Missing man formation applicability 4 Peceived bias of article 5 Peer Review 6 Failed GA nomination

[edit] Article scope

Too much UK focus. It might intrest people to know that the UK isn't the only place that flyovers/flypasts happen.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.69.103 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dear RJASE1, I am the creator of the Flypast article and wonder if you would consider rewording your second sentence, "It might interest people to know that the UK isn't the only place where flypasts happen".

I will concede that your first sentence was fine ("too much UK focus") but I found the second to be unnecessarily sarcastic and somewhat distorting. distortion.

I do not object in principle to your placing this on the military history project - I'm no military person, myself - but I do find that sentence somewhat caustic and reductive, given that there is a whole section on international flypasts and I ran pictures and descriptions of flypasts in several countries.

I spent about three months researching that article and gathering all the references I could find and went to great lengths to include as much as was within my power and resources.

Please reword the second sentence of your proposal to more accurately reflect the article. I will be interested to see the improvements to the article.

I will post a copy of this to Talk:Flypast and would ask you to reply there. Thanks. -- FClef (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't made the comment (70.250.69.103 did), I only added the project banner. I added an 'unsigned' template to his/her comment above - I agree it was obnoxious. I enjoyed the article and added it to the Military History project to give it more visibility - nice work! - RJASE1 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree - nothing wrong with this piece at all. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military History Project Assessment Scale Rating

As the creator of the article, might I suggest a Class B Rating? RJASE1? Looper? Any views out there? I agree possibly a table or Infobox summarizing the dates might jazz it up.... Any offers, o ye who are technically more proficient than I? Come on, chaps! --FClef (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I assessed the article against B-class criteria and it's definitely there - actually I think it's more than ready for GA-class and I'm nominating it today. - RJASE1 02:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See Looper has re-assessed the rating Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I reassessed the article for a few reasons. 1) This article is very UK specific in spite of the fact that every country in the world with an air force conducts flypasts, 2) Also, the author has cited every recent flypast in UK history regardless of whether or not they deserve mention. Some flypasts are not notable, not every one in the last 5 years needs to be mentioned.--Looper5920 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to think of a way to resolve this - maybe a new title (Aerial salute?) which includes Flypast (UK), Flyover (US), and possibly missing man formation, as well as the other international aspects cited here. It could concentrate on the ceremonial aspects of the practice as opposed to the aerial demonstration aspect (Airshow). Thoughts? - RJASE1 18:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just took another look at the article. While it is a great start and well referenced I have some concerns about the content/layout of the article so I would not feel it appropriate to give it a "B" rating at this time. First, there is far to much emphasis on the U.K. I would argue that flypasts occur in almost every country that has an air force. While all of the examples are well referenced, most are given undue weight by either being to long or having their own section. Might be more appropriate to lose all of the subsection of the U.K., create one section, shorten it to include only the ones that really belong to a sentence or two. Or you may consider renaming the article Flypasts (United Kingdom). Every flypast that ever occured does not have to be mentioned. I am also not a big fan ofthe image gallery in the middle of the page. Might be better to move that to the bottom or incorporate the photos into the article individually. Anyway, just some initial thoughts. I am actually in the middle of something so I will be able to add a bit more later. --Looper5920 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FCLEF, Thanks for responding. I'll list my responses according to the questions/issues you left on my talk page. I have no issues with a U.K. bias where it is appropriate however this article is not a good example. You will notice that in my original response to your queries about this article I never mentioned a lack of U.S. inclusion. That was not my intention when I wrote that nor is it now. What I said is that you have an article on Flypasts that is almost entirely devoted to events that have occured in the U.K. and in the grand scheme of things it is unduly weighted to the U.K. Almost every nation in the world with an Air Force conducts flypasts so I think it would not be correct to highlight an article that emphasizes one Air Force over all of the others. I am not doubting your references or your want to see this article become the best it can be. Please look at the content and weight and re-evaluate where appropriate.--Looper5920 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing man formation applicability

Looper5920 - you archived your talk page very quickly but can I mention, with regard to missing man formation, that the flypast article does deal with funerary flypasts. Surely these fit right in? And they do expand the article's base and go some way to fitting your criterion on re-weighting. -- FClef (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peceived bias of article

With all due respect, I have to disagree with you, Looper. Having looked at your formidable list of contributions, for which I have the utmost respect, I notice a very strong US interest. Quite clearly you are a specialist in US military history and matters, among others.

I can therefore quite understand the standpoint from which you view flypast. However I would contend that the UK possibly leads the world in flypasts and the weight of the article reflects this.

If you truly feel that you cannot tolerate a UK-led article, then I feel that Wikipedia is a much more narrow-minded and prejudicial place than I had originally supposed. And that grieves me. -- FClef (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• How about this for a response. You are an arrogant wanker. My objections to this articles being B-class have nothing to do with it being a UK-led article. There are many such articles on Wikipedia and the fact that they are UK based has nothing to do with their rating. Bottom line is that the article you have created had some large holes in it and it does not deserver the "B" rating. --Looper5920 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong but with reference to both your second sentence in the foregoing and the subject line of the edit, I thought we were meant to avoid personal attacks? (I believe that your own talk page bears this out as well.) Just wanted you to know that I spent 12 happy years studying and teaching on both coasts of the US. The original correspondence yesterday suggested re-titling, re-weighing and many other things. Now that you mention "large holes" I will be grateful to know what omissions you had in mind. -- FClef (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Calm down chaps - it's only an article! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 09:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note...2 weeks after the fact. This is long since done--Looper5920 09:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• The ongoing peer review contains a number of issues that need to be adressed, for what it's worth. Kirill Lokshin 02:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

I am copying my post to Kirill Lokshin below:

Dear Kyrill Lokshin - thank you and your colleagues for measured response to my article. I had difficulties with one of your colleagues as you will have noted from the article talk page, and have suffered one or two wounding posts.

However, the critiques on the Peer Review page are very helpful. I can get on with some of the prose style, visual and organisational points you raise.

However, some of the deeply mechanical or historical stuff is beyond my expertise and there you may need extra input. I felt that you asked for rather alot on this side but Nick Dowling seemed to think that how they are organised would suffice.

I don't have recourse to all the materials to deal with those questions but will have a go as far as I can.

Thanks to all for positive feedback and I will do my best. -- FClef (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(I replied here, if anyone is curious.) Kirill Lokshin 03:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my comments, I think that the article needs to be restructured so that its a more 'generic' discussion of flypasts. The current content should be used to illustrate the different types of flypasts. --Nick Dowling 09:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, and will do a restructuring in line with your suggestion, Nick. Hopefully this should be accomplished over the coming weeks (alas, I have exams on 31st January and 28th February!). --FClef (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Concentrate on your exams first! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination

I failed this for Good Article status, primarily because it is absurdly UK-centric. I know for a fact that they occur quite frequently in the US (at most Super Bowls, for example), which is only mentioned once in the lead section. It gives brief mention to other countries later in the article, but it seems almost an afterthought.

The article is certainly well-written, and well-sourced (too rare on Wikipedia), but I feel it needs more breadth to qualify as a Good Article. --JerryOrr 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)