Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.35/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

Prelim

• 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)

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

Lede and infobox

• 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

• 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"
  • That would work if it was part of an independent clause, but not in this case, IMO--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• "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

• "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
  • I wish I could, but the source doesn't go into any detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• "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)

References

• 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)

@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)

<blushing>Sorry, forgot to save--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Passing this as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)