Talk:Gotha WD.3/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Bruxton (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 14:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I am happy to review this article. Bruxton (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: I have posted some suggestions. Bruxton (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"its ultimate fate is unknown." not sure I see this information in the body.

Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Development and description section

"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)[reply]

Operational history

"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)[reply]

Citations

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)[reply]

Images

There are two images in the article and both appear to be PD and or properly licensed and free.

Chart

Status: Reviewing...

100% 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.