![]() | Gotha WD.3 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 25, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editThe 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 |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Gotha WD.3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 14:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Review
edit- I am happy to review this article. Bruxton (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: I have posted some suggestions. Bruxton (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Lead
edit- FYI: I prefer no citations in the lead, so my suggestion is to repeat the information and cite in the body. I always check to see that the lead summary has all information cited in the body.
- Gothaer Waggonfabrik is mentioned in the lead but not in the body
- I figured Gotha and Gothaer Waffonfabrik were close enough for readers to grasp that they were the same company, but I've added a parenthetical note--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Marine-Fliegerabteilung is mentioned in the lead but not in the body
- I only use the German names on first use, and generally refer to them using the English name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- "compared to aircraft with the more common tractor configuration with the engine in the nose and was not approved for production." not mentioned and cited in the body
- Testing by the Seaplane Experimental Command (Seeflugzeug-Versuchs-Kommando) at Warnemünde revealed that the WD.3 was overweight and had mediocre performance. The command therefore ruled out the possibility of any further pusher-configuration aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- "its ultimate fate is unknown." not sure I see this information in the body.
- Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Grammar
editDevelopment and description section
edit- "Gotha had been built a series of single-engine maritime reconnaissance floatplanes" consider that the sentence might have an extra word "been"
- Indeed.
- "These were unarmed scouts" consider linking or describe what an "unarmed scout" is?
- linked
- "In the days before the development of the interrupter gear," consider a blurb describing what this is.
- "The booms incorporated the inner structs connecting the wings" I m not familiar with the word "structs"
- Me neither :-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Operational history
edit- "the same month that World War I" Consider linking WWI in the body?
- It's a pretty short article
- "which showed that the project was not a high priority" consider expanding upon why developing the plane in 13 months showed that the project was not a high priority.
- Clarified
- "WD.3 was overweight and had mediocre performance" consider explaining or describing how much heavier and how mediocre the performance in comparison or related to expectations.
- My sources don't provide any more detail than that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Citations
edit- Earwig comes up with zero. I will go through each citation.
- Not sure how I can access these sources. Any ideas? I can AGF based on your editing history but I would be satisfied if I could confirm several citations.
- Thank you for the email with screen shots of sources. Bruxton (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Images
edit- There are two images in the article and both appear to be PD and or properly licensed and free.
Chart
edit100% reviewed
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Yes | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Yes | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Yes | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Yes | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Yes | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Yes | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes | |
7. Overall assessment. | Thank you! |
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.