Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Helicopter 66/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2018 [1].

---

Helicopter 66

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a single U.S. Navy helicopter that has been called "one of the most famous, or at least most iconic, helicopters in history". I hesitated to nominate this for FA consideration as it's on the shorter side of articles here. That said, this is a unique entry among vehicular articles in that it is about a single vehicle that was used for a total of 3200 hours (about four months of use) and had a crew of four people. As a result, it produced much less recorded history than a cruiser or battleship which might have seen decades of use by a crew of hundreds or thousands. The article is GA-classed and was recently passed to A-class. Chetsford (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this at the A-class review and found it to be engaging, well-written, and presumably as well researched as is possible for an article on an individual helicopter. It's short, but it doesn't obviously leave the reader wanting. I think it meets the criteria. I like articles on obscure subjects like a single helicopter. The only thing I might suggest is to include it in List of individual aircraft and add a link to that list in the see also. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much! I've added the list to the see also and concurrently added Helicopter 66 to the list. Chetsford (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - fixed! Chetsford (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon. At first glance, why do you use a painting instead of a photo in the infobox? It would seem more appropriate to swap position with the image under design (and then remove the pixel size forcing of the infobox image). FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk - thanks for the comment. I've replaced the image per your suggestion. Chetsford (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there could still be room for the painting elsewhere in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps the two photos under design and history could also have years stated in the captions.
• "the Navy began the practice of repainting Helicopter 740 as Helicopter 66 for the later recovery missions in which it participated" Does this mean it was repainted for each separate occasion, and back again when succeeding? Could be clarified.
• The Apollo missions could be linked n the image captions.
• "In September 1969 German singer Manuela" Link her.
• "covered the next year by Samantha" Introduce her.
• "was cited by Laura Lynn" Likewise.
• Any reason why you link to the Samantha version of the song rather than the supposedly original Manuela version[2] under external links?

FunkMonk - thanks much for your review. I've made all these updates, but please let me know if you notice I've missed anything. Chetsford (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - the article looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Support from PM

Not much to nitpick I have to say.

• Suggest providing engine power information in the design section
• Suggest linking Jones at first mention in the body

That's it. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - both done! Chetsford (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Coordinator comment: Hi Chetsford, has this had a source review? Also, if this is your first potential FA it will also need a spot-check against cited sources for accuracy and plagiarism. Please request such in the source check request box on WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Laser_brain - thanks much, I've just added the source review request. Chetsford (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 17: Can you clarify the publisher? The source is a facsimile report, with no indication of its origin or authority.
• Ref 23: This Meccano Magazine is dubbed the "Space Recovery Special", though I can't see anything in the list of contents to justify this. As the magazine is paginated, can you supply the page numbers for your two citations?
• A very petty point, which I won't insist on, is that the ISBNs of the books could be standardised into modern 13-digit format.

All links working. The sources appear to be in good order and subject the above are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton - thanks so much. I've done #2 and #3. For #1, I've updated it as indicated in this footnote. This is from a link originally contained in this article. LMK if that works! Chetsford (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

References

• Support on 1c checked 1c HQRS quality, sources versus claims and scope. PRIMARY use is appropriate. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.