This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Aviation/Resources page. |
|
Aviation Project‑class | |||||||
|
I am thinking that we should make this page a bit more prominently and permanently linked on the Aircraft and Aviation project pages. As far as I can see it is only linked from discussions that will eventually be archived and I think this page is worth making permanently available, especially to new editors. Ideas on how to best do this? - Ahunt ( talk) 12:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
If any editor has any issues with the reliability or otherwise of sites mentioned on the resources page, with the exception of those specifically marked as non-reliable but useful for further research, please raise them on this page for discussion. Mjroots ( talk) 21:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Clarifying here from the RfA where it came up: a Google Books search for "Joe Baugher" shows that he is, in fact, a published source who is widely recognised as an expert in the field. To wit: "Military aviation expert Joe Baugher" [1]; "Joe Baugher, aviation historian" [2]; "Joe Baugher, "American Military Aircraft Encyclopedia," [3]; "A special acknowledgment has to go to Joe Baugher, whose magnificent web site on military aircraft serial numbers I visited over and over again seeking confirmation of data I had received on individual planes. Anyone doing military aircraft research must visit (address). It will be a visit well spent" [4]; "According to Joe Baugher's magnificent website" [5]; he is also cited as a source by [6] and [7]. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)At Talk:Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the accuracy of Joe Baugher came up. He was on record saying the P-38 engines were prone to overheating and also had problems with the oil never warming up enough—a clear contradiction. I think Joe Baugher must be assessed on a page-by-page basis rather than accepted at face value regardless. All of this concern about Baugher should not affect anybody's suitability for adminship. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually in reviewing the article in question and understanding these sorts of liquid-cooled engine installations as used in the P-38, I can only conclude that Baugher's text is not-inconsistant and that those who think it is are not correct. I think you will have to try harder to find errors. I have to note that even if you did find one error I am not sure that proves anything. Even the most reliable sources contain the odd error and that article is not even within the scope of what is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Joe_Baugher as that specifically deals with "Does Joe Baugher's website pass WP:RS in respect of his lists of American military aircraft serials?" and thus excludes the paqe that is worrying you. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You have completely missed the point though - there is no error in his work there, despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This magnificent geographical tool called Google Earth should be a good resource for obtaining basic data about airports. You can zoom into any airport to know such things as its coordinates and runways. However, I found that using Google Earth as a resource is not welcomed by many contributors. Why would such a genuine source of information be discarded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdashti ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I just added Aviation International News to the "problem sources" section. It was used as a source to establish notability at an article that recently came up for AfD, and some digging reveals that one service that the publication offers is self-published articles, for a price, according to the company's media kit. Feel free to discuss if you disagree with me. RecycledPixels ( talk) 19:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Luft'46 is often cited as a source for articles on wacky German WWII projects. But it has no oversight and tends to swallow all the crazy Wunderwaffen fictions and rumours. There is enough RS around nowadays, that there is no excuse for resorting to it.
The Aerodrome has some expert authors but is not really peer reviewed and most content has no byline to identify the author. This RfC discussion is making it clear that it should not be seen as reliable.
Are there any objections to adding these to the Problematic sources list? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I have been finding a lot of dubious citations in articles on German secret aircraft projects of WWII. I began a discussion of some at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aircraft#RS? and have added a couple to the list here as a result. Here are three more that are widely cited:
Should these be added to the list? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems generally to talk of questionable sources, per WP:QUESTIONABLE. I have reworded the problems zone around this, and commented out a list of minor sites with narrow focus - there must be hundreds such and no point in attempting to highlight a smaller number here. I hope in due course to separate the remaining list into those which Wikipedia has seen fit to deprecate and those which are not deprecated but still regularly bug this project. Feel free to revert and discuss further, per WP:BRD, or just discuss here anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I have purged all easily-searchable references to a few of the sources in this project's list. It's hard work, some of them are cited hundreds of times. Is there an easy way to automate the task? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
One discussion forum, one book:
If nobody objects, I will add these to the naughty list. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Here is a current snapshot of the list, with the number of hits returned in a search on "source identifier". Automated purging appears to be impractical. I have purged a few manually but have no hope of doing it all on my own, so any and all help would be appreciated.
Identifier | Pages |
---|---|
theaerodrome.com | 488 |
airwar.ru | 278 |
aviastar.org | 0 |
ainonline.com | 167 |
greyfalcon.us | 0 |
Kites, Birds & Stuff | |
luft46.com | 0 |
luftarchiv.de | |
militaryfactory.com | 0 (on aircraft) |
nevingtonwarmuseum.com | 0 |
planespotters.net | 1,169 |
secretprojects.co.uk | 0 |
ww2aircraft.net | 0 |
Notes on searching:
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Is airwar.ru a reliable source? I can't read a word of it. It is currently cited in at least 278 articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing aviation-specific in the Newspaper resources section. Unless a consensus want to keep and develop it, I propose that it be deleted. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Aviation International News (ainonline.com) is listed in Common sources to avoid as it "accepts articles for publication directly from advertisers". I understand this could be viewed as a liability for their independence, but their sponsored content is clearly labelled as such. This is advertising and unfortunately seems to be happening in other reputable printed publications like aviationweek or flightglobal.
I think the publication quality is still high enough to be kept as a reliable source. Of course due to advertising no one within the trade press is going to be openly critical, but it's the way it is. Anyway, it is of higher quality than web-only publications as its reporters are actually going to physical events and reporting it, not just reading press release. And of course it's much better than personal pages. It should be reinstated as a reliable source.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 15:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
This source appears to have been added to the list back in May 2019, with this note on the talk page. It's sounding like there may have been some misunderstanding back then about the nature of the paid content. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Aviation/Resources page. |
|
Aviation Project‑class | |||||||
|
I am thinking that we should make this page a bit more prominently and permanently linked on the Aircraft and Aviation project pages. As far as I can see it is only linked from discussions that will eventually be archived and I think this page is worth making permanently available, especially to new editors. Ideas on how to best do this? - Ahunt ( talk) 12:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
If any editor has any issues with the reliability or otherwise of sites mentioned on the resources page, with the exception of those specifically marked as non-reliable but useful for further research, please raise them on this page for discussion. Mjroots ( talk) 21:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Clarifying here from the RfA where it came up: a Google Books search for "Joe Baugher" shows that he is, in fact, a published source who is widely recognised as an expert in the field. To wit: "Military aviation expert Joe Baugher" [1]; "Joe Baugher, aviation historian" [2]; "Joe Baugher, "American Military Aircraft Encyclopedia," [3]; "A special acknowledgment has to go to Joe Baugher, whose magnificent web site on military aircraft serial numbers I visited over and over again seeking confirmation of data I had received on individual planes. Anyone doing military aircraft research must visit (address). It will be a visit well spent" [4]; "According to Joe Baugher's magnificent website" [5]; he is also cited as a source by [6] and [7]. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)At Talk:Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the accuracy of Joe Baugher came up. He was on record saying the P-38 engines were prone to overheating and also had problems with the oil never warming up enough—a clear contradiction. I think Joe Baugher must be assessed on a page-by-page basis rather than accepted at face value regardless. All of this concern about Baugher should not affect anybody's suitability for adminship. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually in reviewing the article in question and understanding these sorts of liquid-cooled engine installations as used in the P-38, I can only conclude that Baugher's text is not-inconsistant and that those who think it is are not correct. I think you will have to try harder to find errors. I have to note that even if you did find one error I am not sure that proves anything. Even the most reliable sources contain the odd error and that article is not even within the scope of what is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Joe_Baugher as that specifically deals with "Does Joe Baugher's website pass WP:RS in respect of his lists of American military aircraft serials?" and thus excludes the paqe that is worrying you. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You have completely missed the point though - there is no error in his work there, despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This magnificent geographical tool called Google Earth should be a good resource for obtaining basic data about airports. You can zoom into any airport to know such things as its coordinates and runways. However, I found that using Google Earth as a resource is not welcomed by many contributors. Why would such a genuine source of information be discarded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdashti ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I just added Aviation International News to the "problem sources" section. It was used as a source to establish notability at an article that recently came up for AfD, and some digging reveals that one service that the publication offers is self-published articles, for a price, according to the company's media kit. Feel free to discuss if you disagree with me. RecycledPixels ( talk) 19:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Luft'46 is often cited as a source for articles on wacky German WWII projects. But it has no oversight and tends to swallow all the crazy Wunderwaffen fictions and rumours. There is enough RS around nowadays, that there is no excuse for resorting to it.
The Aerodrome has some expert authors but is not really peer reviewed and most content has no byline to identify the author. This RfC discussion is making it clear that it should not be seen as reliable.
Are there any objections to adding these to the Problematic sources list? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I have been finding a lot of dubious citations in articles on German secret aircraft projects of WWII. I began a discussion of some at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aircraft#RS? and have added a couple to the list here as a result. Here are three more that are widely cited:
Should these be added to the list? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems generally to talk of questionable sources, per WP:QUESTIONABLE. I have reworded the problems zone around this, and commented out a list of minor sites with narrow focus - there must be hundreds such and no point in attempting to highlight a smaller number here. I hope in due course to separate the remaining list into those which Wikipedia has seen fit to deprecate and those which are not deprecated but still regularly bug this project. Feel free to revert and discuss further, per WP:BRD, or just discuss here anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I have purged all easily-searchable references to a few of the sources in this project's list. It's hard work, some of them are cited hundreds of times. Is there an easy way to automate the task? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
One discussion forum, one book:
If nobody objects, I will add these to the naughty list. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Here is a current snapshot of the list, with the number of hits returned in a search on "source identifier". Automated purging appears to be impractical. I have purged a few manually but have no hope of doing it all on my own, so any and all help would be appreciated.
Identifier | Pages |
---|---|
theaerodrome.com | 488 |
airwar.ru | 278 |
aviastar.org | 0 |
ainonline.com | 167 |
greyfalcon.us | 0 |
Kites, Birds & Stuff | |
luft46.com | 0 |
luftarchiv.de | |
militaryfactory.com | 0 (on aircraft) |
nevingtonwarmuseum.com | 0 |
planespotters.net | 1,169 |
secretprojects.co.uk | 0 |
ww2aircraft.net | 0 |
Notes on searching:
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Is airwar.ru a reliable source? I can't read a word of it. It is currently cited in at least 278 articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing aviation-specific in the Newspaper resources section. Unless a consensus want to keep and develop it, I propose that it be deleted. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Aviation International News (ainonline.com) is listed in Common sources to avoid as it "accepts articles for publication directly from advertisers". I understand this could be viewed as a liability for their independence, but their sponsored content is clearly labelled as such. This is advertising and unfortunately seems to be happening in other reputable printed publications like aviationweek or flightglobal.
I think the publication quality is still high enough to be kept as a reliable source. Of course due to advertising no one within the trade press is going to be openly critical, but it's the way it is. Anyway, it is of higher quality than web-only publications as its reporters are actually going to physical events and reporting it, not just reading press release. And of course it's much better than personal pages. It should be reinstated as a reliable source.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 15:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
This source appears to have been added to the list back in May 2019, with this note on the talk page. It's sounding like there may have been some misunderstanding back then about the nature of the paid content. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)