Talk:Airbus Beluga

Reworking the lead

I think the lead needs to be heavily reworked - right now it mentions the entry to service date of its successor aircraft, but not even the entry to service date of itself! My attempt at this has been flushed out entirely without discussion (on the apparent basis that it covers material mentioned in the article aka what a lead is supposed to?), so I guess it's up to somebody else to try to reform it to decently cover its subject. Kyteto (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Airbus Beluga/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cherrell410 (talk · contribs) 14:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   There is a major copyright violation in the lead - the entire first paragraph, 1st sentence of second para and first 2 sentences of the third paragraph were directly copied from https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/airbus-beluga-29ae25e32aac4dcd9d3effa44332240d, which isn't even reffed in this article

   It has been determined that the website copied from wikipedia Cherrell410^{(t · c)} 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Suggestions for improvement below:

• Could you put a template in the source to specify which type of english you're using
• Lead, Last Paragraph: There are a few time related things that need updating every month, which should either be removed or replaced with {{Currentmonth}} {{Currentyear}}
• Background: the entire first paragraph could be removed, because it has nothing to do with the beluga itself, but rather the history of the company
• Background: first half of second paragraph is unsourced
• "Over time, the Beluga has been used to carry a variety of special loads, including space station components, large and delicate artwork, industrial machinery, and intact helicopters. The A300-600ST's freight compartment is 7.4 m (24 ft) in diameter and 37.7 m (124 ft) long; maximum payload is 47 tonnes." is unsourced
• Design: (see operational history) should be removed
• References: many of the refs aren't formatted correctly (see ref 5)

Responses

• Regarding the 2D copyright violation detection, it is particularly useful that I am the nominating editor as I also am the author of that lead; here is the link to the edit where I submitted it: History edit link There was also a talk page entry by me on the same topic: [Talk:Airbus_Beluga#Reworking_the_lead link]. It's bold of me to say, but the violation is the other way around e.g. Wikipedia had this writing first. I devised it word by word myself, and did not copy any other source. I'm certain that if any other site currently has this, that it was copy-pasted from here, not the other way around. I am not sure if that assurance and time stamping is satisfactory, please advise.
• If you suggesting that I add '|language = en-gb' to most/all of the citations, I am happy to do so. Is this correct?

• Sorry that this was unclear, I meant add the {{Use British English}} at the start just so that its clear

• Lead last para now updated with the auto-update date code.
• I did feel it was good context as to the situation as to why they turned to the Beluga, decades ahead of the far older Boeing, but I take the point. I have cut it from the start, and recontextualise some of it in the operational history.
• Placed supporting citation for content in the first half of what was the second paragraph of the background as requested.
• The quoted unsourced "special load" sentence now has been cross-cited from operational history.
• Removed as requested.
• I've gone over cite formatting in background section, is this now formatted in the desired style?

Thank you for going over this, once the the british english thing has been addressed, then I will be happy to pass this article. Cherrell410^{(t · c)} 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all, I've added the British English tag to the top as clarified. Please let me know if there is anything else, either that I've not addressed (at all or to the desired extent), or something new that is noticed for improvement. Kyteto (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.