This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nimbus227. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Crikey! I'm blushing again!! Thanks very much. I must acknowledge the work of the other editors in there, the always friendly atmosphere (which is a pleasure to work in) and also your help for putting straight my often less than perfect grammar and spelling!! All the best. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No probs! Just thought all your hard work, especially at the moment, deserves to be noted. Quite so; the others at the project are a good bunch. : ) --RedSunset19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This deserves several boxes of Jaffa Cakes and a team of Cheer Leaders, making an entrance on Triumph Bonnevilles dancing to "You'll always reap what you sow". Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Cheers Minor, you summed me up there! I love old things, Merlins, Spitfires, Tiger Moths, Bonnevilles and Glenn Miller music. It's a bit spooky but the catering department (aka Mrs Nimbus) packed a bag of 'Mini Jaffa cakes' for my lunch today, they are about one inch diameter and you can get even more in at one go!! A whole new Jaffa experience. "You'll always reap what you sow" is not one of the Men in Black's finest tracks, from their 'slightly lost' renaissance period I think! Can't beat Black and White at the fullest possible volume, I am high tone deaf from hearing this played live at Battersea Park in 1978, the RAF quacks thought it was from jet noise all along!! Eh?!! Much appreciated. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Salmson 9
Oops, we got a problem here. The Comper Swift is shown to have used a 50 hp Salmson A.D.9, refs its WP article and Jackson 1974. I added the Swift to the Salmson 9 article having noticed the image there but without spotting the power ratings. The Salmson parent article offers no further help, and I have no engine books, over to you.PeterWD (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Peter and thanks for coming here, I see the problem now that I've looked a bit closer, Salmson is a company I did not know much about until five minutes ago!! The Salmson 9 article was originally created as a 'family' article and does say that. It is probably a good time to create individual engine type articles, they are closely related engines but as each type had a different capacity and powered different aircraft that's good enough reason to have their own article. I usually create a company navbox which helps enormously with understanding the range. I have information on four different capacity '9's and one seven cylinder engine, all British licensed built. Will need a little time to set it all up, and do some reading to get the designations right. I had this image of the little Comper Swift standing on its nose with a 500 lb engine hanging on it! Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)21:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not heavily into light stuff (or engines), just visiting anything connected to Heston and adding links and refs, and cleaning up as I go, preparing the ground ready for monster Heston re-do. I might just tweak the Swift page a bit more, if I can find reliable gen on more survivors.PeterWD (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Update.Today I obtained on loan a library book with an appendix detailing 26 engines used in classic British ultralights (includes Pobjoy P). If you wish, I can offer citation details and OCR of selected stuff via email. Meanwhile, here's the Salmson extract to get you going:
Salmson
Societe des Moteurs Salmson, Billancourt, Seine,
France
The French Salmson company began manufacturing
aero engines in 1912, specializing in water-cooled
radial units. As early as 1913 the Dunbridge Iron
Works company was licence-building the water-
cooled Salmson (Canton-Unne) radial engine at its
Stroud works. In 1930 another British company took
out a licence to build Salmson aero engines at Raynes
Park in London. The British Salmson Aero Engines
company produced amongst others the AD9 radial
engine, which most suited light aircraft and powered
several ultra-light types during the 1930s.
Salmson AD9 and AD9R: 54 hp, nine-cylinder,
radial, air-cooled. Bore and stroke: 70 mm x 86
mm. Capacity: 2,970 cc. Normal engine speed:
2,100 rpm to produce 48 hp. Maximum engine
speed: 2,310 rpm to produce 54 hp. Weight: 160 lb.
Aircraft in which engine was flown: Angus Aquila,
Comper CLA 7 Swift, Boulton and Paul P 41
Phoenix and Hinkler Ibis.
(end extract).PS Now in contact with Comper family, and found mountains of Comper stuff in journals they are unaware of.PeterWD (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I've got a possible eight or nine engines in a sandbox version of a navbox here. Things that I am pondering is the format of the article names (we could have Salmson AD.9, AD9, AD 9, 9AD or 9 AD etc.) Seems the British versions had reversed designations and this noted by Bill Gunston (the 9B was the B9 for instance!!), doh!! I've created a category on Commons for Salmson engines. The '9 Series' redlink is a suggested move title for the existing Salmson 9 article. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)20:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear; keep it up. I'm continuing to dig deep into Comper stuff. BTW, the image on the Salmson 9 page looks like it's Klemm L.25 D-EFTE at Berlin ILA show May 2006, perhaps needs expanded caption, see two images in Commons. Also, next time you edit Salmson 9, spelling needed for Develoment section header.PeterWD (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:AIRCRASH copyediting
Cheers for doing the copy-editing on the new WP:AIRCRASH guidelines - I probably should have composed it in something more advanced than KWrite (or at least run it through a spell check before pasting it!). Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I know the Merlin is up for FA so I figured I'd ask before doing any edits... IMHO, one of the important parts of the history for the Merlin is how the gap formed that it was intended to fill. That was a side-effect of the development of the Peregrine and Vulture, which left a hole for a 1000-1100 hp engine between them, a performance area many engine builders were looking at during that period (210 -> 211, 600/601 etc). I'd like to add a brief mention of this, but will avoid doing so if it interferes with the FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Maury, I am a little mystified at the moment as to whether the article will be considered too long or too short, hopefully the FAC process will get moving again soon, I'm also not sure what, if any, potential outstanding queries/problems may be lurking in there, I'm fairly confident it's ok but am standing by to be proven wrong!!. My understanding is that the Peregrine and Vulture were developed after the Merlin though it is interesting that the contemporary German engines were similar size, I suppose the most comparable engine, the DB 605, was some 7 litres larger than the Merlin though. Did you have any particular reference in mind that we could have a look at in the meantime? Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)04:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I take your point re article length Gary, but maybe the development of the Peregrine/Vulture relative to the Merlin paras could do with a bit of smoothing, and Maury's suggested additions might bring it together more completely. How about posting the modified text either here or on the Merlin talk page for perusal and suggestions? --RedSunset19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I've got an empty re-cycled sandbox User:Nimbus227/Sandbox/Do 28 if you guys would like to use it. I was reading up on it myself this morning, what I'm getting is that it was RR (or Hives) that felt the need for the larger (than the Kestrel) engine (which I think is what the article says at the moment). The Peregrine is described as the last variant of the Kestrel but it does not appear to have run much before 1938, the Vulture seems to have appeared at much the same time. With the Air Ministry not financially supporting the Merlin initially it must have only been down to RR to decide to develop it. The Air Ministry requirements that became the Spit and Hurricane were both issued a few years after the 'PV12' first ran. Maybe I missed something? Is Henry Tizard involved somewhere? The first Griffon was a de-rated 'R' and ran quite early (before the Merlin). Would be nice if the FAC process moved along a bit, I guess that it is just stuck in a long queue or they could be thinking 'we'll review it when they've stopped changing it!' Paranoia creeping in!!! I'm at work for the next three days but I will look in briefly in the evenings (GMT). Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)19:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I love beaches (and indoor beach parties where you bring your own sand)!! Sorry that it is taking so long, out of my control unfortunately. Strictly I suppose when an article gets to FA level there is not much to add and all is left to do is fend off the bored schoolchildren (check Boeing 747 for daily fun). I wonder in the future if projects could run their own FA reviews, applying the same standards of course. It seems to be down to a team of three editors at the moment who appear to be overwhelmed but they are not saying so. You should have a look at some of the web based references in the Spitfire article as quite a few used in the Merlin were thrown out as unreliable at FAC. Hope that I've got some Jaffa cakes for work tomorrow, check this out:[1] How could she be so cruel?!! Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Damn; someone has discovered them!!!They can all be a bit like that from time to time (sigh)! Never mind, I've got a hidden stash to bring along to the party (and some old Tonkas somewhere in the loft). In the meantime, here's one for the road! Yeah, the FAC process seems to be exceedingly slow, but Gary could well be correct in thinking that they can't get to grips with it if it doesn't stop wriggling! On the other hand, it might be one of those 'boring' topics that the reviewers are not interested in! But then, it's common knowledge that all FAC reviewers without exception are fine, upstanding members of the Wiki community, and that they are entirely fair and unbiased in their efforts to ensure an article is granted the ultimate accolade ;-) (this page might be being monitored!) Anyway, back to my first comment; it seems to me that perhaps the wording doesn't get the message across effectively since Maury evidently feels there is something missing, and we don't want the reviewers to think the same. --RedSunset08:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I had a teacher like that! She once caught me nibbling on a choccy bikkie behind my desk lid - she grabbed my bikkie and munched it in front of everyone. OH THE CRUELTY!!! reminds me of these two [2]Minorhistorian (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Sabre-ing
Seeing as there's not a lot happening with the Merlin, I thought I will have a go at the Napier Sabre; some of my scources:
Oooh! Not really looked at it in detail, I have some marginally better photographs of the Sabre from my recent trip to the London museums, the light was awful at both of them (I am told they keep it dark for UV protection). I had started to look at the Griffon but I'm easy! Sure, will have a look at it while I'm 'sitting on my hands' so to speak! Lumsden covers the Sabre well I think. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Beardmore 160 hp
I was busy starting to collect data on the above engine, with a view to writing a short article, when I came across your new article on the Beardmore 120 hp engine. Having seen all the great work you are doing in this area, I thought that it would be better for you to write the 160 hp article too - you're the specialist and will do it justice! Just in case you haven't seen it, there's a brilliant source for this one (and a couple of other engines of similar vintage) here. I hope that you can fit it in soon - I'll link to it in the not too distant future from another article I'm working on. The site includes all main specs/data pages from the original sales manual, which points out that it had been run at 208 hp in the works! There's also footage of the restored engine (which the Kiwis retrieved from S.America), which they want to install and fly in an FE.2b. Have fun! Oh yes, a forum comment here states that the 160 hp was basically the 120 hp with a larger bore. --TraceyR (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I think the last bit is true about the increased bore being the only difference. Will see when I can do it, maybe later today. Redlinks can be added in the meantime, it would be Beardmore 160 hp. Can't use a non-free image for the article as there is obviously one left, and running at that!! Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)09:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Adam, much appreciated. It was in the 'cooking pot' for far too long! Made a change from engines and proves that I am capable of producing low quality articles on any subject!!! Seriously though, readers might detect a trans-Atlantic influence due to your kind and knowledgeable input on the modern processes and materials. Can I have a lie down now?!! Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)15:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hearty congratulations – with your new set of wings you'll be able to turn out articles twice as fast! ;-) --RedSunset17:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm going to work for the next three days to have a rest and to plan what I might create next week!! Still got the Salmsons mentioned above though sorting it all out is causing some headaches. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)17:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nimbus, I just want to commend you on your patience... I would have been driven insance by the process at this point! Good luck pushing it through, I feel like they're just throwing pebbles at this point! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well done Gary! Now you can start thinking about that painting you mentioned putting off. Actually starting can wait a day or two though. ;) I might have to do some touch up painting myself soon. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Too much rain to paint now (strategic planning!). Well that was an experience! I was determined to set a benchmark for the engine articles, when I first came here two years ago I looked to the Featured Articles to see how it was done. With the experience we could promote more, the key is in the prior preparation, I slightly underestimated what the requirements were mainly through lack of clear instructions. From a low point of leaving Wikipedia earlier this year due to the actions of a very obnoxious editor to the high of this achievement is something to reflect on. The Jaffa cakes are on me BTW! Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)02:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Now this is satisfying! After a long day listening to lectures and grinding my brain over some tricky essay questions...what's that U2 song? Cel-e-bra-tion WoooHooo! Great Job Gary! Minorhistorian (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought it would cheer you up! We have very few FAs in the aviation project, I first thought that this was a vendetta against the project but quickly realised that the articles were not up to standard. I got a new Spitfire book today 'Price - Spitfire at War', does not seem to have been used and is full of stuff new to me. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)03:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! That's an interesting award, not seen that before, 'Universal spanner', love it. I have actually identified the next article that I am going to push for FA, the Tumansky R-29, nobody at the engine task force has yet attempted to go in there! I have looked at it myself many times, absolutely no clue where to start! Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)18:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome – it's one I knocked up specially for the occasion. Just took a peek at the Tumansky article – have you lost the will to live?!!! ;-) --RedSunset19:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The bit that tickles me is the line in the tag that says 'This article may need copy-editing'. Shouldn't poke fun really, in a way it is a shame to do anything with it as it is quite 'unique'. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)19:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
A new challenge?
No doubt you have many ideas about how to occupy your time, now that the Merlin has taken off, but here's an idea: The Burlat rotary engine! I just stumbled across it while researching something else (as one does) - here, and can find no reference to it on WP (neither here nor in the French and German WPs). The link (in French) has several illustrations as well as the cover page of the UK patent application from 1913 - it might be interesting to write it up... --TraceyR (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a strange one isn't it!! Never seen it before. I don't think that I have anything on it reference wise and my French is pretty poor although I did scrape an 'O' level pass in it after the teacher said that I would fail miserably!!! I'll add it to my mental list, I have half a plan to sort out the Salmson engine range and I was asked to look at the Napier Sabre as well. Still got the Patrie to look at properly. I would like to get out into the countryside for a bit and chuck some models off a hill, environmentally friendly fun and very cheap! Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)13:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that you won't be short of suggestions! Have a well-earned break and come back revitalised! Yes, the Patrie awaits a look for A status, although, having seen the hoops one has to go through to attain FA status, I'm not sure that I have the stamina to go that far!! On the subject of the Burlat engine, the reference links to a Franch mathematician Philippe de La Hire and his work on epicycloids ... just to whet the appetite! --TraceyR (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on bringing Rolls-Royce Merlin to FA! Wikipedia appreciates the effort you put into producing such a comprehensive article. Your attention to detail in the article and your helpful and inquisitive attitude at FAC is one of things that makes you such a valuable editor. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks very much!! I have been previously identified as a 'Completer Finisher'! Your kind words do sum up exactly how I try to work here, I am a 'fact adder' (a strange kind of snake!) and quite frankly would be lost without other editors who sort out my grammar or find more exciting ways to describe some of the boring things that I write about!! Being a 'CF' it just makes me type faster when I see something amiss!! Thanks again, very much appreciated. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)22:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to clear this up. I think that whole page is misleading, as it confuses two quite separate engines, the 75hp & the 190hp. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have only one line from Lumsden's book which covers the British produced Renaults (not French ones), the 190 hp Renault is called the '8Gd' there. All the others are as I have put them in the new navbox, 60,70,80,160 hp and the 12Fe V-12. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)22:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Just checked Gunston and Jane's, no mention of an '8Bd' in either, did learn that there were WWII Renault engines though. Approaching 90 years old it's hardly surprising that the designations get clouded, Jane's had it right back then, they just used horsepower ratings to avoid confusion. The nearest to a 75 hp Renault would be the type WS or WC according to Lumsden but that may be a British designation. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
As you might have noticed from Commons, I have a manual for the 190hp and scanned it. Comparisons to the rather more common 75hp ought to clear up the rest.
As to retirement, then force of habit keeps me whacking the odd troll, but I've rather lost the will to do anything useful and actually author stuff. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Semi-retirement then. The main reason I asked is that I would like to improve the aircraft rocket engine articles which would involve using the project standard infobox, also noting that the 'rocketspecs' template was not finished properly and is not really useable at the moment, I would get that sorted. I don't see why an aircraft rocket engine should be treated any differently to a piston or jet engine myself apart from the specs template fully catering for its needs. Standardisation eases the perpetual 'why is this article different to the others' questions, the exact same question that I asked when I started here in 2007. There is one user that 'guards' the rocket engines who I would prefer not to interact with (the reason I left WP for several months earlier this year) which makes me reluctant to go in the articles (completely turns the principle of WP:BOLD on its head). With one article steered to FA I just hope that I can be trusted to provide a quality end result which is what the encyclopedia wants and needs. Take care Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)00:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Arthur
Arthur or Ather - in the 1901 Census it is transcribed as Ather but if you look at the original it is just the bad hand writing! might be easier to leave it Arthur! Sorry I edited at the same time earlier I thought you had finished!! MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I did wonder if it was a typo or how it was meant to be. Can we get his birth date from anywhere? Looking into these designers is unearthing more details about the engines, he is credited with sole design of quite a few engines and I see he got a medal for the 'R' which also involved Royce, Lovesey and Rubbra. There are still a couple of RR designers missing but I will get round to them slowly. Cheers for the additions, looks a respectable article now. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)20:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw him earlier during my extensive research (aka Google!), shame that the link he gives points to the RR homepage. They had a website reshuffle a while ago and seem to have quietly binned the history articles of the people who got them where they are today. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Just some info after 1969 the England and Wales death index give the data of birth but earlier just gave the age at death. The birth index just gives you a quarter year the birth was registered. If you use http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl and enter Arthur Rowledge it gives 1876 Q3 (or September Quarter). So he was probably born from late June to the end of September. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings Nimbus227, and thanks for your suggestions in the FA review process for Boeing 777. We've replaced the lead image per your suggestions, and added details regarding RR, RAT. Thanks also for your help in editing the cockpit and other photos. Aiming to emulate the Boeing 747 article, which has FA status, we're trying to keep the variants sections as concise as possible for now. Also congrats on Rolls-Royce Merlin achieving FA status! Any further suggestions on how we could achieve a similar successful effort for this article? Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have suggested some things in there (and the earlier peer review) that were obviously not popular but in my view need to be done, I was careful not to be overly negative and 'sink the ship'. The general lack of positive responses and a third attempt at FAC indicates that there is something amiss with the article. My view BTW is based on the recent experience of the Merlin FA and a combination of all the guidelines and peer reviews that I can remember. It is very difficult to get a popular article like the Merlin or 777 to FA due to the sheer number of well intentioned editors having an input, I worked on the Merlin for two years and at the end I had to be a little bit forceful and ask editors to stop changing things which may have portrayed me as a 'control freak', you don't seem to be having that problem with the 777 but its contents are the product of many editors over many years. I call it the 'Horse designed by a committee' effect, i.e. a camel!! It's just the way it happens and it is then very difficult to turn it back into a horse again.
My secret weapon is Red Sunset, a very adept copy editor who could work wonders in the 777 given a free hand (he does not watch this page so I can say what I like about him!). I add the facts and he turns it into English, what they want at FA (quite rightly) is accurate but not overwhelming referenced facts (to remain encyclopedic) strung together with clear, concise and engaging words (the difficult bit) that turn an article virtually into a flowing story. The 'overwhelming' part of the 777 to me is the many numbers present. The Merlin article had a large variants table (full of specification figures) that was duplicating the text, a real mess that could not be easily fixed so I split it off to another article where it has been untouched ever since, there is no way that it would have passed FAC with it present. A consistent timeline must run through the article, it probably does in the 777 but the numbers could be hiding it. Another very good technique is to read through the article again but imagine that you know nothing at all about the subject, what would you not understand? Ram air turbine was added after I suggested it (I guessed that it had one), even though it is wikilinked a very short explanation should be added after the term for readers who don't want to go to another article just yet.
I have been visiting FACs recently that I know absolutely nothing about (feeling that I should attempt to review FACs after the Merlin job), I came upon a rat article, full of latin names and biological terms, I commented politely that I did not understand some words and that the structure could be better, I was effectively told to 'buzz' off somewhere else by the young nominator. I did buzz off eventually but I came to the conclusion that each WP project does not necessarily realise that it is writing for a much wider audience.
After the article has all the facts, the very best images and is brilliantly written the Manual of Style experts move in to note where all the semi-colons should be, if they are in the right place to start with then they bypass your article and pick on someone else! The end of the process is where one of three editors views the review page discussion (we call it a 'bun fight' in England) and does a magic mouse click (or not so magic as the case may be) to promote the article.
A combination of many small things to achieve the end goal and extremely difficult to get right with a subject like the 777, bet you're glad that I'm clogging my talk page with this 'guff' and not yours!! That's the way I understand the FAC process anyway. As I get older (not far off 50 now) I can appreciate the bigger picture but also get more opinionated and that can get me 'sailing close to the wind' at times. I should add that I am quite critical of articles in reviews and apply a high standard at every level (a B class article without an image should not be B class IMO) but I expect the same standard to be applied by other reviewers to any article that I might submit, the end result though in both cases is a high quality article, I could not describe my feelings after getting the Merlin to FA, it was good and deserved to get there after much hard work (to blow a small trumpet for 2 seconds), also acknowledging the five years of input by other editors that went into it before I started tampering with it.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I have worked on Boeing 777 for two years, but this is the first time I've nominated the article for FA. The previous 2nd nomination was done by a now-banned editor (with little to no input on the article), without consultation and the agreement of the most involved editors. Nonetheless we attempted to address the suggestions made, despite the premature nomination. The original nomination was done years back by an editor who has left the project--making this current nomination the first serious one in years. Since then, we've gone through copyediting, as well as peer review, GA, A-Class, etc., so I believe we are close to the pinnacle. Moreover, I've read the article multiple times from a 'first person' approximate view, and have seen to it that the timeline is flowing and consistent. But improvements are possible.
As for the review as it stands, I feel you are correct that this is a 'popular' article with many cooks in the pot so to speak, but on the evaluation front I speak from my experiences with this article that the lack of responses mostly reflects apathy and the article's scope, with few bothering to read it at all (yet it is within length guidelines). Of those that have commented, some have been too busy to check back to see if their suggestions have been implemented. In any case, thank you for your expertise, and for responding. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Well to be even more unkind, I don't think that it should have passed A class review either. There is some apathy with reviews, this could be read two ways, one is that potential reviewers look at an article and think 'I don't know where to start with this one' (possibly the case with the 777) or as I am finding more often, I comment negatively on an article (with the aim of making it better) but get told to 'buzz' off or ignored, ask Trevor and Born2, they will probably note the same (but don't quote me!), The effect is that we don't want to review anything with any passion any more, certainly does not seem anything in it but grief for me and it can be a very time consuming process to review an article properly.
I just had another look at the 747 article, that is an early FA and the standards were different then, it has a very, very short design section and a very long variants section, which personally I would split off immediately. It is possible that trying to emulate its format with the 777 article is causing the lack of support votes or positive comments. Article length guidelines are just that, guidelines. The Merlin was 60 kb and we set that limit and managed to stay under it by one kb, how I don't know. Have a look at the Rolls-Royce R, again just under 60 kb and to let the 'cat out of the bag' probably our next engine FAC. Remember that you can not fix things overnight, I have been adding detail and cites to this one for nearly a month (four full days a week). Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)03:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Your opinions are duly noted, and I appreciate your points. Would you be willing to acknowledge the changes made regarding your specific suggestions on the FA review page? Thanks in advance. SynergyStar (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
And regarding the kb size, I again would like to point out that the kB size is separate from what WP:SIZE refers to--it refers to the prose and not the references, which can account for 1/4 of the article size or more. SynergyStar (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
True, but if you move the variants to a separate article you will also be moving the hefty number of cites that are in that section (double cites in some cases?) ;-) You can point out what you like, Kbs are one thing but I am seeing a lot of text and numbers disregarding the reference section and don't seem to be getting that message across. Very late over here, I will strike what I think has been actioned but as I understand the process, comments are just that and don't need to be actioned, the striking needs to be done in 'opposes'. I will strike anyway. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)04:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I just had a quick look and I remember what the problem is, lots of lovely text but virtually uncited, I don't have the source that the text was based on (assuming that it did come from a single source and not someone's head), fairly well stumped unfortunately unless I re-wrote it using Lumsden but he does not use as many words as this article. My usual tack here is to go back through the revision history to find exactly when the majority of the text was added and see if the source can be ascertained, then I search the world for the book, pay a mint to buy one and then fix the cites!!! All good fun. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)00:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Although the article is reasonably well written, some of the writing is ponderous/wordy. I am also picking up inaccuracies; for example, according to Lumsden the Sabre II was a 1940 vintage, apparently experimental engine, yet other sources, including the Hawker Typhoon Pilot's Notes of 1943, lists it as a standard operational engine for the Typhoon. It is frustrating that whoever wrote the bulk of the article didn't bother with the cites! Last time I went to MOTAT was in the early '90s; there are some really interesting aircraft and other transport devices on display; unfortunately MOTAT suffered from lack of cash and for a long time many of these beasts were neglected. What are you wanting to check out? Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Roger on wordy and the usefulness of adding cites as we go along!! Will have a better look at Lumsden later, I think I added the variants, the experimental bit relates to the reduction gear and not the engine as such, the clipped writing does not explain that clearly (yet!). On MOTAT, our Thunderbolt (car) article indicates that there are 'remains' of Rolls-Royce R engines on display there, would be for my interest only (or for the article if it could be cited), we have 16 of 19 engines unaccounted for. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)19:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Surely the crucial aspect for the definition of a boxer engine is an opposed 4-stroke engine with simultaneous firing of opposed cylinders, rather than firing on alternate rotations. This may or may not include opposed 2 strokes, which will be simultaneous anyway.
I don't see any reason why this should exclude H engines, provided they fire simultaneously. That's the crucial aspect, not how many coupled banks they have, rare though H engines are.
Sadly I don't know the timing for the Dagger, and whether it would thus be a boxer or not, but I wouldn't rule it out. Andy Dingley (talk)
The term 'boxer engine' is effectively a coloquialism, it is not found in manuals published by the FAA for example. Noting that boxer engine redirects to flat engine and that the boxer section in that article is completely unreferenced. We therefore have a category Category:Boxer engines that has no referenced definition of the term, further noting that the statement in that category is also unreferenced and appears to be confused. When the term has been properly defined and referenced then we can add the category to articles that clearly tell us that they are of this configuration. This is not the case at the moment. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)12:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, that is what Lumsden calls it as well, the whole section of his book (Rapier, Javelin, Dagger and Sabre) comes under the heading 'Napier-Halford', Frank Halford signed a consultancy contract with Napier & Son in 1928, presumably part of this deal was having his name included in the designs. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The OR issue is real, but not too large. Archival work is the definition of original research in history.
The citation issues should be easily fixed... if you haven't worked with archives before you wouldn't be aware of the difficulties of citing archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, as I indicated in the FAC rationale this information was already in the article, I have attempted to reference it but have not viewed the document myself. To the best of my knowledge there is absolutely no original research in this article on my part. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)03:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your great work on this article. I began it years ago and am absolutely delighted with what has happened. Congratulations on the featured article. PeterGrecian (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much Peter, it was a team effort and if you had not started the article we might not be quite so far along the road!! I did not really appreciate the story behind the Rolls-Royce R until I started digging in the books, hopefully everyone is more enlightened now. It spawned some new articles such as Arthur Rubbra, Cyril Lovesey, Arthur Rowledge and the Fiat AS.6. I think you can have redlinks in Featured Articles but they were needed for the full story. If you are still interested in aero engines we have a litle task force going at WP:AETF, still lots to do. Cheers and thanks again. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)20:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Heads up
It's Thanksgiving here, so I may not be around for the next several days, don't worry if I'm not responsive W/R/T the peer review, I'm not ignoring it! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Frank Courtney/Courtenay
If it's the same guy who was with Grahame-White before the war, I'm going by Brew's Boulton Paul Aircraft and Flight magazine (eg here in 1919) unless there is another test pilot of that era with a similar name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Frank T Courtenay is how Alec Lumsden spells it, someone has his name spelt wrong but who!! Courtenay is the more unusual form. Seems to be the same chap and Flight spell it 'Courtney' multiple times, very strange. Are you going to write an article on him? Feel free to revert BTW, his name would need changing in the quote as well (although that is not what is given in the source!). Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)17:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
So long as the link ends up at the right article, it can still be written as Lumsden has it. An article on Frank Courtney would be good, as he seems to have been involved with several firms/aircraft but I've no real source to start with. It would act more as a bit of glue to other articles and hopefully someone else will add in time. Another British aviator/engineer missing is John Dudley North. Fortunately the BP aircraft book has enough to flesh him out a bit.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks fixable, the engine might not even be shock loaded from the minimal damage to the prop. Gear failure twice? Still a shame but it will be insured. A friend just got his Beechcraft Bonanza back after it was taxied into in France whilst parked, a real mess but you can't even see the join now!! Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Slackness!
Sorry if I've been a bit slack lately folks, I'm currently building one of these [4] (yes, the page screams 'you have new messages'!) quite time consuming but rewarding. Model aircraft building and flying is a big hobby of mine and it is building season at the moment, would like one day to fix the unloved articles here that are in a bit of a mess. The infobox image at Radio-controlled glider is one of mine. Anyone who is remotely interested in this stuff can PM me and I can direct you to the website where my build threads are kept. Also waiting for some new glasses so that I can see what rubbish I am actually entering here! Still watching and maintaining articles with a sandbox project in the pipeline. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)00:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I had a similar problem during the summer so I moved the breakfast bar into the garage, citing more kitchen floor-space as the reason – "simples"! Lateral thinking at its best. BTW, I trust you've finished the house painting that you promised 'cos we wouldn't want to upset Mrs Nimbus would we! ;-) --RedSunset12:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nimbus, do you mind swinging back by your comments and updating and/or striking what's left so I can see what I still need to work on? Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nimbus, sorry to keep pestering you about this, but is there anything specific that you still want me to do before you're comfortable changing "comments" into "support"? I hope you had a great Christmas! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I struck my comments where I noted improvements. Nobody has reviewed the images yet or checked the sources for reliability. Sorry if I'm not being very generous but I use this part of the A-class criteria as a guide: An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues. In other words it should be an easy jump to FA, I watch the FAC page and many articles don't make it, mainly due to poor preparation and some editors are shocked that A class articles are declined (or struggle with long FA reviews to get through). I really would prefer to see another reviewer in there at least comment on the images and references as I have said far too much there already and at the previous review. It's not far off though with much work done. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)14:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I completely understand. I want the article to meet the standards it needs to. I'll request a look at the images and sources in my reminder at AP/AETF. Where's Bill when I need him! :p -SidewinderX (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry
What's this I hear about all this white stuff invading Europe and sending Channel trains into a tizzy?? Not good flying weather either...tsk, tsk...I truly empathize (he says...adding another layer of sunblock and sipping on a cola tinkling with little iceblocks while admiring the ladies in bikinis) Have a great festive season in spite of it all! Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the "B" class I missed that when I copied it from somewhere! Did wonder if it should have been Austro Engine AE 300 as the marketing name but I stuck to the official designation E4 and created a redirect fo AE 300. We can change it back if consensus changes. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}