Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.19

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

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.19/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 19:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 19:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

  • Is there a retirement year to add to the infobox?
    • None that I've been able to find. I suspect sometime in 1915 based on the small numbers built.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Body[edit]

  • Lowercase "Operational history" in the header
  • Is there a date/year the aircraft was retired?
  • Rest looks good

Sources[edit]

  • All sources look reliable

Images[edit]

  • Uses fair use, but I found the same image on Flickr which could be uploaded to replace the free use image. This similar image of the same aircraft was confirmed by a Commons administrator which was uploaded from the same Flickr account, the San Diego Air and Space Museum Archive.
    • Thanks for that; I'd searched Google images without success for a copyright-free image, but it didn't turn up this one. I'll have to bookmark the SDSM for later use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other[edit]

  • Focused on topic
  • Neutral
  • Stable
  • Good coverage for the information available

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Sturmvogel 66: I've done my review of the article and left some comments. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 20:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PizzaKing13: All done. Thanks for taking this on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Everything looks good. I'll pass this review. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 07:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrichshafen FF.19
Friedrichshafen FF.19

Improved to Good Article status by Sturmvogel 66 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 15:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Friedrichshafen FF.19; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • article was recently promoted to GA, is long enough and is within policy. The hook is long enough and interesting. QPQ is complete. Hook is cited by an offline source which is unavailable to me. Assume it is good. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specs[edit]

"Propellers: 2-bladed" -- Should be singular; it had one propeller. – Sca (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the template won't let me use it in the singular form.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]