Talk:AEG G.IV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Latest edits[edit]

I am putting back the article to a previous form as the latest edits have introduced some puzzling changes, tagging simple and easily verifiable statements, moving cites to other sections and not providing sources to back up the changes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC).

I've put some effort to make this article better and it has been completely reverted. Multiple good faith edits. Wiki does not work this way. Your last changes are indeed "puzzling" to me, as they go against WP:MOS, against WP:WikiProject Aircraft/page content, and put statements in strange places/context. But as you've acted in good faith I'm NOT REVERTING to my version. Nevertheless, great job with providing references and sincere thanks for this. (diff of interest) --Kubanczyk (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the range figure as it isn't in Gray and Thetford - and seems unlikely given the referenced fact that it was kept for short range missions over the front.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It is to be noted that the Gray and Thetford book has been surpased by more recent research, and is no longer considered an authoritive text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.244.72.4 (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is still a decent Reliable source in the absence of someone referencing to better reliable sources its better than nothing - and is unlikely to be too out of kilter.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)