Talk:Rumpler 6B/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 10:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 18:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
This looks like another excellent article by Sturmvogel 66. On a cursory inspection, it looks close to meeting the Good Article criteria already but I will start my review shortly. simongraham (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Overall, the standard of the article is high.
- It is of substantial length, with 1,651 words of readable prose.
- The lead is appropriately long at 201 words. The second paragraph is very short and so the lead could be combined into one paragraph, which could make it easier for readers using mobile devices.
- Authorship is 75.4% from the nominator with contributions from 27 other editors, mainly non-significant.
- It is currently assessed as a Start class article.
Criteria
[edit]The six good article criteria:
- It is reasonable well written.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- The writing is clear and appropriate.
- Suggest adding a comma after "war" in "After the war" in the lead.
- I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included, with sources listed.
- Suggest it may be worth looking at Gray & Thetford's German Aircraft of the First World War[[1]] as I feel this is iconic for aircraft of this period.
- I have, but, aside from stats, it only has three sentences on it. I don't disagree with you, but I do think that it's showing its age, especially for the low-production and experimental aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- Almost all citations are from books produced by credible publishers.
- If you would like a printed source for the survivor in the Finnish museum, it is listed on page 35 of Ogden's Great Aircraft Collections of the World[[2]].
- Thanks for that, but online works well enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- it contains no original research;
- All relevant statements have inline citations.
- Spot checks confirm Ciglic 2014, Green & Swanborough 1994 and Lamberton 1960 speak about the aircraft on the pages mentioned in the citations.
- While it is likely the observer would be male, I suggest rewording "The two-bay wings were unaltered although their stagger was revised with the upper wing moved forward to compensate for the removal of the observer, his armament and the weight of the two floats" unless we know there were no female observers in any of the air forces.
- I take your point, but I'd be willing to bet a very large sum of money that no known women served in any combat roles in the German Navy during this time. But that's so taken for granted that you'll never find a source that actually states as much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. Although Evgeniya Shakhovskaya had already served as pilot by this time, the likelihood is low. MOS:GNL does not help much, but I feel that the fact that jobs are given as the example in of the use of gender-neutral language, i.e. "avoid speaking of teachers or shop assistants as being either women (even if this occupation is mostly female in your culture) or as men (even if this occupation is mostly male in your culture)", is indicative. I feel the edits do not affect the meaning, so I have undertaken them. Please do revert if you feel it alters the content too much. simongraham (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 7.4% chance of copyright violation but the only matches seem to be references.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- It is broad in its coverage
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- I see that Cowin's German and Austrian Aviation of World War I[[3]] states that 98 6Bs were produced, 43 6B1 and 55 6B2 (p. 34). Is this inaccurate or does this include the exports?
- Herris actually gives serial numbers, so I think that he's the best source on this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Munson's Fighters 1914-19[[4]] says that one of the 6B2 ordered was replaced by an additional 6B1 in January 1918. Suggest that is worth mentioning.
- Herris says that that one of the preproduction 6B2s was not delivered, but offers no explanation. Nor does he say why the last 6B1 was delivered 7 months late. All of the production 6Bs were ordered in batches divisible by 5 so I'm not inclined to think that the 6B1 was delivered in lieu of the 6B2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seems a reasonable view based on the sources.21:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article seems otherwise comprehensive.
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- The article is well balanced.
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- It has a neutral point of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- Although the German Navy was the principle operator, the fact that the type was used by other air forces at what would be critical times in their formation seems significant. It would be interesting to see any information on how important it was for the development of Bulgarian and Yugoslav naval aviation if that is available.
- Sadly no, their service is poorly documented. As is common for the formative years of organizations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- It is stable.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- There is no evidence of edit wars.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The lead image and plan view have appropriate PD and CC tags respectively.
- images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The images are appropriate. Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- See if my changes are satisfactory. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66:Thank you for your work on this. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.
Pass simongraham (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.