# Talk:Platt-LePage XR-1

This review is transcluded from Talk:Platt-LePage XR-1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: —Ed!(talk) 02:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
It is reasonably well written:
Comments
"Platt-LePage's submission was judged superior to its competitors" - which of the competitors' models was the XR-1 superior to? And how was it superior? Add a little clarity or links, if possible.
 Done - added a footnote detailing the other submissions; I can't come across exactly how the Army judged the XR-1 superior, just that it did. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
"the aircraft was not completed until three months later than the contract schedule" - any idea why this was the case?
 Done - Can't find anything about exactly why there were delays, but I did find that the delays spurred Sikorsky receiving an Army contract, so I've added that. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
"With the worst of the bugs believed to be worked out," - calling them 'bugs' seems a little unencyclopedic.
 Done - The Bushranger One ping only 20:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
"improved helicopters, such as Sikorsky's XR-4, were becoming available" - how was the XR-4 improved over the XR-1?
 Done - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Financial figures would be good too, ie cost of the contract or renegotiations, cost of the models, projected production cost etc.
 Done There's contradictorary information in the sources - the Smithsonian says the intial contract was "nearly $500,000", while Francillon's book gives a number just under $200,000 and notes that contract change orders increased the amount. It seems like the Smithsonian number is the final amount (and is likely more accurate), so I've used that. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass Has plenty of refs.
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass Seems to cover the subject well.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass
It is stable:
Pass
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass Four images.
Overall:
On Hold pending changes. It could stand a copy edit but other than that it meets the GA requirements as I see them. —Ed!(talk) 03:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll get to this soon as I can, my internet access is a bit spotty at the moment. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, been busy and had connection problems. Will get to this ASAP. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Very good. I am now passing the article. Well done! —Ed!(talk) 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)