# Talk:Interstate TDR

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate TDR/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: wackywace 08:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I will review the article, and will post any findings within the next few days. wackywace 08:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

General
There are two dab links, Fairing and Naval Aviation Museum
Fixed. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Lead
Please use — for dashes, instead of using the ordinary dash sign.
Fixed. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
"...against the Japanese, but due to continued development problems, combined with conventional weapons proving to be adequate, the program was canceled." This middle bit is a bit awkward. I think this might be better: "The type saw some service in the Pacific Theater against the Japanese, but the program was canceled following continued development problems, and after conventional weapons proved to be adequate." Feel free to come up with another idea if you don't think that reads very well.
Went with a slightly different rewrite idea, hope it works? - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Even better! wackywace 18:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Design and development
In the lead "assault drone" is in double quotes, in Design and development, it is in single quotes. Consistency here would maximise readability.
Fixed. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Aircraft on display
It would be good to split the Florida link, so instead of "[[Pensacola, Florida]]", you would have "[[Pensacola, Florida|Pensacola]], [[Florida]]".
Fixed. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Variants and operators
Just a quiery, but why are their spaces between the end of the lines and the references? I haven't seen it on any other aircraft articles, but if it is personal preference then I have no issues with it.
That was actually a slip on my part, it looks better without them, so I've fixed that. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall, a very good article on a topic that (judging by the number of references) is poorly-covered elsewhere. Once the issues have been addressed, I will be happy to pass the article. Good work. wackywace 08:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
All issues have been addressed; I am happy to pass this article. wackywace 18:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks! ^_^ - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not totally clear to me from the article how this worked.  How did the operator communicate with the aircraft?  What type of feedback did he get to operate it?  Was he required to be in visual contact with it in order to operate it?  Where did he operate from; a another nearby aircraft?  What type of missions was it intended for?  It acted as a bomber?  Did it have any air-to-air capability?  Was it considered being used as a cruise missile / kamikaze device?  What were the operator's impressions of it? Aepryus (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a bit about how the type was controlled. Drones of this time had no air-to-air capability whatsoever; they acted as bombers, and sometimes were crashed into their targets afterwards; some were attempted to return to base, but I'm not sure if any actually made it. I'll have to do a bit of digging in the sources to find out on that. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; the added info is helpful.  Also, what was the range between the control aircraft and the drone? Aepryus (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't find anything on that, alas. I'd assume it was strictly line-of-sight, though. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

All the footnotes in this article reference the Parsch article on the internet.  The problem with that is, all the information in the Parsch piece actually is based on original research conducted by Nick Spark, and published in Proceedings Magazine in 2005.  I just added bibliographic information regarding this article, which is posted on the STAGONE website, but it seems to me that all the references should be adjusted to the primary source instead of the secondary source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyonthemarch (talk • contribs) 20:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 

Actually, the Spark article is also a secondary source, to be technical about it. :) But thanks, I'll work through it when I get a chance to go over this one again for improvements! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, to truly be technical about it, no the Spark article is the primary source.  Spark sent Parsche his Proceedings manuscript prior to publication and worked with him to create the materials on his website.  Almost all the information presented about the drones is the result of original research by Spark, which was then repeated in other articles.  While it may be that you are indicating that this Wikipedia article draws only directly from Parsch's site, it's misleading.  Parsch did not conduct much if any original research, and his findings are published on a self-created website, whereas Spark's article appeared in a nationally known magazine and went through editorial review.  I don't diminish Parsch in any way, but if you've read Spark's article it's very clear he's the one who assembled almost all the factual data presented herein.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyonthemarch (talk • contribs) 04:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, what I'm trying to say is that "Primary Source" is a technical Wikipedia term; 'primary sources' in this case would be either the United States Navy or Interstate Aircraft. Spark, working from those primary sources, would be a secondary source; Parsch, in this scenario, a teritary source. Just wanted to let you know that, so there wouldn't be any confusion, as primary sources are discouraged for use as references. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been made aware that there is a discussion going on about my article concerning the TDR-1 and WWII drone program.  While I believe I understand the semantic argument at work here, regarding the definition of primary and secondary sources, I think there is something to be said for the spirit of what HIstoryonthemarch is writing about.  In 2003-2004 I conducted groundbreaking interviews with veterans of the WWII drone programs who up until that point, had remained silent concerning their activities as part of STAGONE.  The article which appeared in Proceedings was a revelation of sorts, in that it revealed for the very first time the extent of the WWII effort, exposing many details which had never been available previously and/or which had been considered confidential.  This primary research has subsequently been republished without any attribution in a variety of venues, including Wikipedia.  I mentioned my chagrin about this to a friend and obviously this discussion is the result.  By the way Bushranger, if you wish to contact me directly I can answer many questions concerning this program     and help you improve this article.  You can do so via regulusdoc(at)aol(dot)com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.2.14 (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, when I get the chance to get around to working on this some more I just might drop a line (being mindful of WP:OR, of course)! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes I understand no original research.  However if you review my article or exchange a couple emails I can clarify certain details for instance the line of sight comment above in discussion.  There is no mention in this piece about Wurlitzer yet they were the most important manufacturer of this aircraft and it seems to me to not be the only case where there is vague or discrepant information.  For instance the piece notes that the TDR-1 was initially used against Japanese ships, that is not really an accurate statement.  It was used against a single, grounded ship in combat.  This is the type of error that should be corrected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.2.14 (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)