Talk:Rumpler 6B/GA1

GA Review

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

• 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

The six good article criteria:

1. 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.

2. 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.

   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]].

   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.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 7.4% chance of copyright violation but the only matches seem to be references.

3. 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?
   • 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.
   • The article seems otherwise comprehensive.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article is well balanced.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

@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)