This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
With a team of journalists and correspondents around the world, it provides global coverage of aerospace manufacturing and aviation operations in the areas of air transport, business aviation, defence, general aviation and spaceflight. Features include the magazine's famous aircraft cutaway illustrations, flight tests of new aircraft, in-service reports and sector-by-sector analysis.[1]
[...]
Since the late 1920s, Flight International has become particularly well known for producing highly detailed aviation illustrations, known as 'Flight Cutaways' and 'Micro-cutaways'. These were pioneered by Max Millar, head of the artist's department. Some of the best known artists in this field were Arthur Bowbeer, Frank Munger and John Marsden, who between them produced several hundred cutaways between 1946 and 1994.[2]
According to Flight, the goal of the cutaways is to inform aerospace professionals of developments in civil and defence aircraft and engine programmes, and to do so in uncompromising detail, worldwide. The Cutaways are a globally recognized product and benchmark for detail and accuracy.[2]
So work to improve the sourcing. Even edit it to improve the tone. But do not simply blank sections that you dislike. And when reverted by another editor, per WP:BRD DO NOT simply start edit-warring to have it your way. Also 'reading some of Flight might be useful. These cutaways are ubiquitous, distinctive and have been so since the middle of last century. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the above material as well as a good deal of the section Flight Daily News is written essentially as an advertisement, I think adding Template:Advert to the page pending resolution of this dispute would be appropriate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sourcing, I doubt that reliable sources will be found for most of the above material, particularly descriptions of the magazine's "features", "team of journalists and correspondents around the world", "best known artists", and "globally recognized product" – as well as statements from the section Flight Daily News such as "it was a new concept in air show daily newspapers" and "it markets the information it provides as 'today's news today'". This is essentially advertising, which does not belong on Wikipedia according to What Wikipedia is not. A good deal more is simply unsourced trivia, which even if reliable sources were found, wouldn't represent the most significant, published viewpoints on the topic as required by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^Ward, Arthur (2015). A Guide to War Publications of the First & Second World War: From Training Guides to Propaganda Posters. Pen and Sword. p. 39. ISBN9781783831548. Founded in 1909, Flight (now Flight International) the British produced global aerospace weekly and the world's oldest continuously published aviation news magazine, was another publisher of specialist information which appeared as wartime paper restrictions allowed to keep enthusiasts up to date in aircraft design and performance.
I have removed the tag after a tidy up, it has only two "closely related" refs now one of which deals with the content which is probably not unreasonable and one is a front cover related to the incorporation of a different title. We can probably in time find another ref but as it is factual rather than opinion it is really not an issue. MilborneOne (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources out of five with close ties to the subject is still significant, in my opinion. Whether the material is factual isn't really the issue. Reliable, secondary sources are needed to establish the relative WP:WEIGHT of different statements. In such a brief article (and yes, I know it was longer before I removed a bunch of promotional content), every statement should be evaluated for whether it represents a summary of accepted knowledge about the subject – If the 1920s merger with The Aircraft Engineer & Airships is accepted as being significant to the topic, then finding a reliable, independent source for it should be a trivial matter. However, I'm not seeing any mention of it in independent publications.
User:Sangdeboeuf I dont disagree with your statement that some of the words are still a bit fluffy and they should be removed, I am still looking for something on the aircraft engineer & airships but it is not a journal I have heard of before so it probably is not significant. I would still argue that a primary source is fine for factual information about itself but I understand your concern about weight and balance. MilborneOne (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked more closely at the source cited for the statement
In the mid-1920s Flight incorporated a related journal, The Aircraft Engineer & Airships[3]
I'm not seeing any mention of the other journal being "incorporated", or indeed of it ever having existed as a separate publication. There are just the words The Aircraft Engineer & Airships underneath the main title, Flight. I'm guessing there was a bit of original interpretation by some Wikipedian involved here – in that light, I would suggest removing the statement entirely. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]