Talk:LTG FD 1/GA1

GA Review

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: 49p (talk · contribs) 06:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Taking this one. Shouldn't be long of a review. 49p (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Pass. Minor changes were needed in development and description. But for a obscure aircraft, this passes GA after adding the changes. I went ahead with these changes because I don't believe there will be much contoversial on much of these. 49p (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• Lead and infobox is excellent. Information is backed up in the next sections. No changes needed here.

Development and description

• Include dates to every month you include. If you talk about "May" or "July," there should be a year to it so it reads "May 1917" or "July 1918."
• Change "LTG (Aerial Torpedo Company) was founded in early 1915..." to "LTG was founded in early 1915..."
  • I don't understand the usage of the parentheses and don't see how it's required in the sentence. Unless there's information that I'm missing, this can be safely removed.
• Change "The next aircraft was delivered in July; flight testing showed that it was not very maneuverable and lacked longitudinal stability so the third prototype was returned to the factory on 7 September to "The second aircraft was delivered in July, but flight testing showed it lacked maneuverability and longitudinal stability. As a result, the third prototype was sent back to the factory on 7 September"
  • This sentence seems way too hard-to-read and confusing as one sentence. I broke it up and changed some of the prose.
• Change "Another batch of three prototypes (Marine numbers 1518–1520) had been ordered when the aircraft passed its static testing in March, but enlarging the vertical stabilizer and making the other necessary changes delayed deliveries until July 1918." to "In May 1918, the aircraft passed its static testing and another batch of three prototypes (Marine numbers 1518–1520) was made. However, due to necessary changes, such as enlarging the vertical stabilizer, delayed deliveries until March–July 1918.
  • Same issue as the previous, the original prose seems a bit hard to read. Breaking the sentences apart makes it easier to read.
  • I also noticed you say May here? Do you mean March 1918 and it being delivered on July. Otherwise, this doesn't make sense as all.
• Change "Their ultimate fate is unknown" to "The fate of the aircrafts is unknown"
  • Original seems a bit weird and fiction-like. I don't think we need to put "ultimate" in there. I added of the aircrafts just to give context (although it may be obvious).
• Move some information around so it's more chronological — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49p (talk • contribs) 07:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Specifications

• Assume good faith from source, but uses proper citation.

Sources

• Assuming good faith on some citations from the sources from Gray & Thetford, Herris, and Andersson & Sanger. I can confirm Green & Swanborough's citations is true.

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.