Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would integrate note 1 into the text.

Done. AM

• "A unique feature of the Sea King II was a tube that ran through the hull to supply air to the 'rear step'" What "rear step"?

Explanation given. AM

• Lead says "probably", body says "the aircraft exhibited was a modified N60 Baby". Be consistent

Sorted. AM

• "240 horsepower (180 kW) Siddeley Puma engine" this is not cited anywhere

Cited. AM

• What is the basis of CC licensing for the archive.org images? Since it's a UK publication I expect both UK and US public domain tags would be necessary (probably {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-1923}}).

Tags added. AM

(t · c) buidhe 03:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I've checked a few of the sources and did not find any close paraphrasing, failed verification, or OR issues. The only outstanding issue is image licensing (t · c) buidhe 09:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, the licensing issue seems to be sorted now. Although, for future reference I would not advise changing the licensing of images that already have OTRS permissions, or leaving contradictory information about the licensing status, I fixed these issues myself. (t · c) buidhe 10:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Buidhe. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]