Wikipedia:Peer review/Douglas XP-48/archive1

Douglas XP-48

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I think just about everything that can be said on the subject has been said, and I want to know if this might squeak by as a Good Article. Or, alternatively, what could be done to push it over that threshold.

Thanks, The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I suspect that almost everything that is known about this deisgn is in here, but think there may still be some room for expansion in terms of background and context. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

The dab finder shows one disambiguation link in the article that will need to be fixed.
I realize the article very short (Prose size (text only): 2068 B (333 words) "readable prose size") but I think the lead should be a little longer (as it is only two sentences now). First, I think that the alternate name (Model 312) should be in the lead. Second, I think perhaps some of the specifications could be in the lead - what aspects of the design were unique or especially notable - this could just be another sentence.
Is the name of the designer or designers known? If not, could anything be added about Douglas general design philosphy / strategy at the time? Did the firm have a chief designer, for example? Or had they designed / made any racing planes whose design elements are reflected in the design for the XP-48?
Can anything be added on what they planned to make it out of - assume metal, but might it have been wood for lightness?
Can a bit of explanation be given on the aspects of the design that are known - what would a high aspect ratio for the wings given to the plane compared to a more normal wing? Was this a trend of the time or something new and radical?
It seems to me that the development problems with the engine could likely be a few sentences instead of just one. I also think that "At the same time, Douglas' performance estimates were becoming increasingly regarded as being over-optimistic.[7]" sounds like a few more sentences at least that could be added. What did they fudge on and how were the y caught?
There is a template that some of the specifications are missing for this airplane. Could the missing parameters be added somehow, even as a sentence saying something like "Because it was never built, it is known what sort of franistats the XP-48 would have had..."
Did Douglas get paid at all for their design work (if not, then the image may have the wrong license)? Did they actually build anything of the physical prototype before the contract was canceled?
What makes the external link a WP:RS?
The Military History WikiProject folks are very good at reviewing and assessing articles like this and may be able to help expand it (if anymore is known).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]