Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.31

B class review

B class. The introduction states: "Although primarily intended for reconnaissance duties" and "Although it was satisfactory for its intended mission". Please support both statements by cited sources in the narrative section. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate these sorts of comments. Keep it up!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.31/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources

2. Verifiable with no original research:

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. 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);
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

• 2a. A nice, straight-forward start: the article has a list of references in an appropriately titled section.
• 2b. The article is well-referenced to three sources which appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS.
• 2c. All major content is referenced. Unable to carry out verifiability checks as the sources provided are all offline. However, a check against a separate online source [1] verified some of the key information provided.
• 2d. AGF: unable to carry out checks for copyright violations or plagiarism as sources provided are all offline. Nominator is well-trusted, and I have carried out numerous previous reviews of their work with no concerns in this area.

Images

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• 6a. Only one image provided, which is appropriately licensed.
• 6b. Only one image provided, which is relevant, and appropriately captioned.

Prose

1. Well-written:

1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• 1a. One very minor query:
• "..from in his position in the front cockpit." Too many "in"s?
• 1b. A couple of queries:
• Despite being a very short article, the MOS asks that the lead provide a summary of the content contained in the main body. In this article, a couple of facts are present in the lead, but not the body, specifically that it was a two-seat plane, that it was built by Flugzeugbau Friedrichshafen, and that it was during the First World War.
  • It was fitted with two open cockpits in the nacelle. covers two seats, I think. You are correct about not mentioning the builder. The 1915 date in the lede and the main body should tie into WW1 pretty solidly.
• Consider getting rid of the "Operators" section. It is currently unreferenced, and according to the prose, calling the German Imperial Navy an operator is stretching the truth: they tried a prototype and deemed it not fit for service.
  • Good idea.

3. Broad in its coverage:

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• 3a. Some queries:
• Could it be worth adding that the FF.27, which this was developed from, was also not mass-produced. From the article on that plane, it looks like only one of those was ever built?
  • Correct, but I'm not sure that that's actually significant.
• At the moment FF.37 redirects here. A small amount of information is presented here, but not much. I understand that the two were fundamentally the same plane, but do we have any figures on how many FF.37s were built etc, or are you planning to spin out a separate article for that?
  • No, especially since I have no info on performance for either aircraft. I've clarified that only one FF.37 was built and that it was also rejected for service.
• 3b. No concerns.
• 4. No concerns.
• 5. No concerns.

That's the lot. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your time; I think that I've dealt with all the issues that you raised. Let me know if you feel that more needs to be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The changes you've made give me no further concerns against the criteria. Nice work. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

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.