Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red Arrows/archive1

Red Arrows

This is a self nomination, I think it is intersting and meets all criteria, I hope you agree! thanks - Bluemoose 15:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support:Perhaps a little short, but I can't think what other there is to say, great photography. Well written. Giano | Talk 18:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Generally good article, object however, that a) their motto isn't covered although it's visible on the badge and b) it's difficult to work out which reference covers which part of the article, which makes it difficult to verify. Please improve the referencing system so that it's possible to know where different facts came from. For example, you could use invisible references or footnotes to help with this.Mozzerati 20:55, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
  • Is it ok if i reference more main facts how i have already in the last 2 paragraphs of "The Red Arrows arrive"?, and badge covered now - thanks Bluemoose 22:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • direct numbered external links aren't my preference. They are recommended against in the style guides because they are difficult to correct later if the break. I've tried to improve the references generally. Could you continue like that? Mozzerati 07:08, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Support good article covering all the key things I would want to know and easy to verify. Mozzerati 05:49, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Sorry, object - the content is pretty good, but it doesn't seem to flow all that logically for me. Wouldn't it make sense to deal with the last section (history) first, and then deal with pilots, planes, etc? Also, the left-right images at the top make the lead look a bit cluttered. Some of the writing patchy - for example, "The Pilots" includes a single-sentence paragraph: "During a routine, Red Arrows pilots regularly experience forces up to five times that of gravity (see g-force), when performing the Vixen Break forces up to 7g can be reached, the limit of the aircraft is 8g." which could easily be broken up and explained properly - what is the Vixen Break, for example? You could also describe some of their formations/routines, perhaps with some diagrams.-- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont think formation/routine descriptions would be a good addition, as it would require so much text as to dominate the article. This article is neither about flight routines or the physics of motion in a gravitational field, so doesnt need anymore explaining, not that I think it could not be improved (as i have just done). I can see the logic of putting history first, but it just doesnt look right, and I think flows better is the present order. Thanks for constructive criticism - Bluemoose 16:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

suggestion you might red-link the manoeuvers (maybe as sections of a not yet written article [[aerobatics manoeuvre#vixen break|vixen break]].) since they will be common for all aerobatics articles, but aren't yet written. Mozzerati 19:16, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

On your suggestion I linked to aerobatic maneuver, however i didnt red-link vixen break as a)it looks messy b)no guarrantee it will ever be created. Given enough time I will add more maneuvers to that page though, including vixen break. - thanks Bluemoose 20:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment on objections (after closing of FAC - so too late) - a) red-links are pretty much standard; don't worry, policy is to leave them in if you think an article should be creaetd b) I think that the ordering should be most likely to be valuable to reader to least; in the case of the Red Arrows, their history is only important because they are famous. Saying why they are famous should come first. Mozzerati 19:49, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)