Talk:Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar

message: A very interesting and informative article, but two inline citations is not nearly enough for an article of this length and technical detail. Also, while it is well-written on the whole, there are a few instances of informal phrasing that make it seem not quite encyclopedic ("technical fortress," for instance) and a few places where it needs copyediting. This sentence, for instance, has a couple of problems as well as an external jump that should be converted to a footnote: "In 1955, an extensive article appeared in Look Magazine was published, that, among other claims, speculated that current UFO sitings were Soviet-built saucers, which looking remarkably similar to Frost's all-disk aircraft."
With citations and a good copyediting, the article should make GA with no trouble. Please do resubmit it when you've made the changes. MLilburne 10:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also add that for an article of this length, and with such a unique subject, there should probably be more pictures. There are currently only 3 (one of which has TOP SECRET written across it, for some reason), and it could use several more. --JerryOrr 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now that there's 50 inlines, I'd say it's time we tried for FA. Really, this is the best article on the topic available anywhere on the 'net. It deserves recognition. Maury (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Added to WP:GAR. Maury (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a little way short of FA yet, well worth another try at GA though. But you should just renominate it at WP:GAN, no need for a review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: Hi!  I'm reviewing the article for WP:GAC - it's improved immensely since last time around.  I found (and fixed) one spelling mistake - but that was about the extent of my problems!  One change I'd like to see (although it's not going to stop me from passing it) would be to switch over the references from a simple  xxxx  to using the more recent  so that references can follow a standard format with author names, etc.  That's not a requirement for GA status though. (See: :Template:Cite/doc for details on how to use the various citation templates.
Good work!  I look forward to seeing this nominated for WP:FAC.
SteveBaker (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd GAC review.

message: Just saying, "project Y" sure looks a lot like Vought_V-173.  Not sure about the size, and the canopy looks very different, but its around the same time...
207.159.180.63 (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not even close. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Y

message: Sometimes, I can't help but wonder if the people who contribute to Wikipedia ever read their sources. Case in point:
:In a repeat of the earlier Toronto Star release, in 1955 an extensive article appeared in Look Magazine that, among other claims, speculated that current UFO sightings were Soviet-built saucers. The article went on to describe such an aircraft with diagrams that were clearly influenced by the Avro design.
Would somebody care to show me where, in the cited article, there is evidence of it being a 'leak', like the Toronto Star release? Or where it says that UFO were Soviet-built saucers? Or in what way the illustrations which accompany the article were 'clearly influenced by the Avro design'? I've just read the article, and my impression is that it was clearly identified as a speculative piece, which was inspired by the numerous rumours about Project Y which appeared in the North American press after February 1953. Moreover, the illustrations are just as clearly identified as a 'design study'; produced by an aeronautical engineer who was employed by Republic Aviation, Look made no bones about the fact that 'the design could be arrived at independently and is only one of several possible approaches to the construction of a saucer craft.'
It's this kind of sloppiness which has people laughing at Wikipedia. So, if nobody has any objections, I'd like to remove the spurious remarks. Oboroten (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Read what you cite

message: http://blogs.archives.gov/ndc/?p=426
List this inline or at the end? Hcobb (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note it in the external links. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already mentions Project 1794. So this link, and maybe the newly declassified picture from the National Archives, should go there.  The AvroCar was the small-scale proof-of-concept vehicle for Project 1794.  --John Nagle (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Build a FLYING SAUCER 

message: Regardless of whether this was intentionally designed as a ground-effect vehicle or not, shouldn't this get linked to Ground effect vehicle? Kortoso (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ground-effect vehicle or hovercraft 

message: Substituted at 17:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The US National Archives has posted three long AvroCar videos on Youtube. These are AVRO film reports on the project.
* Progress Report 1 (1959)  (Originally SECRET)
* Progress Report 2 (1959)  (Originally FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY)
* Continuation test program (1960)  (Originally unclassified)
These are very upbeat films, even though the thing flew very badly.  The films show the progress from badly unstable to stable hover.  It's amusing seeing it bump around the fields of what's now NASA Ames as a hovercraft. But it never got out of ground effect; max altitude was about 1 meter.  John Nagle (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Archives videos 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927042257/http://www.vtol.org/pdf/Vertiflite-VZ9.pdf to http://www.vtol.org/pdf/Vertiflite-VZ9.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001070810/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil:80/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10856 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10856
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060804040008/http://avrocar.com/ to http://www.avrocar.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024155224/http://www.vectorsite.net/avplatfm.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avplatfm.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10856
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Much of this article is not inline referenced - and wasn't at the time it was listed as a GA. Standards may have changed since 2008, but it's clear this doesn't meet the GA crtierion as it stands now. I'm going to launch a barrage of CN templates noting what needs to be inline-cited; I may or may not come back to do some of it myself later when I have time, but regardless I'll let it be worked on for awhile before considering GAR. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article?