Jump to content

Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.35/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 10:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim

[edit]
  • Bracing (aeronautics) is a duplicated link
  • No edit wars
  • Image licensed correctly
  • Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Don't forget about this--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies, completely passed me by. Will complete ASAP. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede and infobox

[edit]
  • Lede is very short which reflects the article, but maybe one more sentence about the location of the plane's service would be useful
  • Link seaplane torpedo bomber
  • "A FF.35 with axles installed underneath its floats" suggests that this plane was one of many; The FF.35... might be a better caption
  • Imperial German Navy isn't mentioned in main text

Development

[edit]
  • A bit nit-picky, but World War I isn't actually mentioned in main text
  • The phrase torpedo bomber could be mentioned and linked a bit earlier on than the third paragraph imo
  • "which was more than existing aircraft"
  • "it was a conventional" we skip very quickly from the Naval Office ordering what one assumes was multiple designs to describing the FF.35 in particular. A word or two connecting the original order to the subsequent design would make the start of the second paragraph much less jarring
  • Why isn't Flugzeugbau Friedrichshafen mentioned in the main text?
  • "Although no further examples were built" Considering this bit is covered later on, I don't think it needs saying here when the reader doesn't yet have the context to understand why. Better to just go straight into the design influencing the FF.41
  • "formed the basis for the more successful FF.41" considering the short length of the article, I don't think it would be amiss to add a little on how the FF.35 impacted the FF.41

Operational history

[edit]
  • "The SVK placed an order in February 1915" would be useful to categorically say that this was for one prototype, as this isn't mentioned anywhere
  • I don't think 300 needs to be italicised
  • "structurally obsolete by the time it was delivered." How so? Elaboration here would be useful
  • "September 1916" no need to repeat the date
  • Annoying that there's no concrete information for the fate of the aircraft?
    • You bet. It's really surprised me that so few German records have survived, but I hadn't anticipated that the Allies basically killed off the German aviation industry after the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • What does the "n.p." stand for?
    • No place.
  • You might think about splitting Ref. #1 out through the paragraph if possible
    • I prefer to consolidate all cites to a single source in one big cite if at all possible.
  • AGF with print references

@Sturmvogel 66: Hi, thanks for being incredibly patient with my tardiness. My comments are above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Don't sweat it, I've taken longer to get finish reviews. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: I see your comments here, and am happy with those, but don't think you've edited the actual article? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<blushing>Sorry, forgot to save--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing this as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]