Talk:Gotha WD.7/GA1
Latest comment: 2 months ago by UndercoverClassicist in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Enjoyed this one -- not too much to say. One paragraph needs a look for MoS, tone and clarity, a few mostly minor suggestions otherwise, and some source spot checks. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- The gloss in the first line isn't formatted correctly: see MOS:SIMPLEGLOSS.
- Still not quite right, I'm afraid. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I found the "Background" section a little slow to get going -- it took a while for it to become clear what all the history had to do with this aircraft. It might help to start with something more clearly related to this one -- something like The Gotha WD.7 was designed in 1915 to meet the need for [etc]. More generally, the tone here slips a little -- we don't, for example, generally refer to the reader as "you" in Wikivoice. I've fixed a few minor copyedit errors, but would suggest giving this section another go.
- I understand the issues that you're having with this introduction as it's definitely the detailed version, but it's hard for me to figure out how to compress it while retaining the important information that it was derived from the Kampfflugzeuge competition. And that means that I have to explain the whole Kampfflugzuge concept. Let me think on this; although I'll be quite happy to take any suggestions from you as a an educated layman.
- My main piece of advice would be to start with this aircraft, and then work backwards to the context -- the problem is not so much that there's too much detail, as that the detail itself isn't very clear or obviously relevant. If you start with the WD.7 and then explain additional information as and when it becomes important, you'll keep a sharper focus. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I'll give that a try.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- My main piece of advice would be to start with this aircraft, and then work backwards to the context -- the problem is not so much that there's too much detail, as that the detail itself isn't very clear or obviously relevant. If you start with the WD.7 and then explain additional information as and when it becomes important, you'll keep a sharper focus. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I understand the issues that you're having with this introduction as it's definitely the detailed version, but it's hard for me to figure out how to compress it while retaining the important information that it was derived from the Kampfflugzeuge competition. And that means that I have to explain the whole Kampfflugzuge concept. Let me think on this; although I'll be quite happy to take any suggestions from you as a an educated layman.
- Can we give its year of design in the infobox?
- No source actually says, but they do hint that it was a modified version of Gotha's never-built design for the Kampfflugzeuge competion.
- We can at least state that it entered (and left?) service in 1916, though. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done.
- "Synchroniser gear" should be plural.
- Gear is actually being used as a synonym for equipment. The linked article's title is synchronization gear.
- It is, and it begins "A synchronization gear" (emphasis mine). See also later: A typical synchronizing gear had three basic components. In this context, "gear" is closer to a synonym for "cog" or, by metonymy, "device". So, we either need to talk about synchroniser gears or the synchroniser gear.
- If you read the article, Fokker's version had no actual gears at all; just cams, push rods, etc. Makes it hard to justify the plural form. I've added an 'a' before the term, though I don't actually see that as necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- You could call it "a gun synchroniser" if you want? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is, and it begins "A synchronization gear" (emphasis mine). See also later: A typical synchronizing gear had three basic components. In this context, "gear" is closer to a synonym for "cog" or, by metonymy, "device". So, we either need to talk about synchroniser gears or the synchroniser gear.
- Gear is actually being used as a synonym for equipment. The linked article's title is synchronization gear.
- the WD.7 was a tractor-configuration two-bay biplane with 120-horsepower (89 kW) Mercedes D.II straight-six engines mounted on the leading edge of the lower wing: we don't actually say how many engines it had.
- Oops
- the first six of them used 100 hp (75 kW) Mercedes D.I engines, but the last aircraft was fitted with 120 hp Argus As.II engines: we should convert the second measurement as well, rather than ask our readers to do the multiplication in their heads.
- 120 hp was converted for the Mercedes engines mentioned in the preceding paragraph
- Still, it's odd to have exactly one unconverted measurement in the article, and the idea of converting them is to allow readers to use either as their "primary" mode of thinking, so I'd suggest that converting here is the better option -- the only argument against is avoiding repetition, but in other contexts we encourage repetition when it aids comprehension. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that it's kinda insulting to the reader to think that they can't remember a conversion that appeared as recently as the previous paragraph. This article isn't nearly as bad with measurement as my warship FAs where you can have 20 or 30 of them, many of which are the same size or thickness. Talk about unduly cluttering up the description!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm approaching this from the perspective that both units are equally valid -- if readers want to operate in hp or kW, we should allow them to treat either one as "primary". However, this is a small point and outside the GA requirements, so having said my piece I will defer to you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that it's kinda insulting to the reader to think that they can't remember a conversion that appeared as recently as the previous paragraph. This article isn't nearly as bad with measurement as my warship FAs where you can have 20 or 30 of them, many of which are the same size or thickness. Talk about unduly cluttering up the description!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Still, it's odd to have exactly one unconverted measurement in the article, and the idea of converting them is to allow readers to use either as their "primary" mode of thinking, so I'd suggest that converting here is the better option -- the only argument against is avoiding repetition, but in other contexts we encourage repetition when it aids comprehension. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- 120 hp was converted for the Mercedes engines mentioned in the preceding paragraph
- 1 x flexible 7.92 mm (0.312 in) Parabellum MG 14: what's a flexible machine gun?
- Rephrased
- Although it might be considered obvious, we don't actually say in the body text that the aircraft were used by the Imperial German Navy (only by the Naval Air Service; the reader is left to infer that it's part of the Navy, not a separate service)
- It's stated in the lede and I think that the Naval title of the organization suffices to link it to the Navy
- Maybe, but MOS:LEAD says that we shouldn't state anything in the lead that isn't stated in the body. If it's important enough to say so in the space-pressured lead, it's important enough to do the same in the body. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that you're over thinking the issue and not giving readers enough credit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I might be, but I don't see a reading of MOS:LEAD that allows a fact to be in the lead but not in the body. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that you're over thinking the issue and not giving readers enough credit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but MOS:LEAD says that we shouldn't state anything in the lead that isn't stated in the body. If it's important enough to say so in the space-pressured lead, it's important enough to do the same in the body. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's stated in the lede and I think that the Naval title of the organization suffices to link it to the Navy
- Both images check out for copyright, and are appropriately captioned.
- Alt text should be added to the images for MOS:ACCESSIBILITY.
- Sadly there aren't any guidelines for what is good alt text...
- There is an explanatory essay (MOS:ALTTEXT), and plenty of good guidance online -- I quite like this one from Harvard. With that said, the bar at the moment is "literally better than nothing", as the alt attributes are blank -- with your writing credits, I doubt you'll have a problem clearing that! UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- That essay doesn't acknowledge that captions will be read by screen readers and that alt text should thus not duplicate the caption and that it should not duplicate nearby text. And I write my captions as descriptive as is reasonable. So what info can I add? The most obvious things would be twin-engined biplane on floats; all of which are covered in the first sentence of the lede. I could add that it's a B/W photo or maybe that it shows the Imperial German Maltese cross marking, but the first one seems rather pointless and the second is pretty trivial. What would you suggest?
- I always try to think of it, roughly, as -- what do I hope to show sighted readers through this image? I do take your point about duplicating captions and text, but again I think you talk yourself down -- the image adds value beyond those, otherwise we wouldn't have included it at all. For the lead image, I might do something like "A wooden biplane on the ground, with a small wheeled carriage ("beaching trolley") underneath each float. The Maltese cross is painted on the lower wing and the tail."}} Here, it's good to start with an overall conspexus: then, I think the iconography is useful (it's something that a sighted reader would pick up), and it's also useful to give a description of the beaching trolleys, which is obvious to sighted readers who can take the image together with the text. You're right that, in general, we don't bother with "black and white photo of..." unless the medium is considered interesting or important. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- That essay doesn't acknowledge that captions will be read by screen readers and that alt text should thus not duplicate the caption and that it should not duplicate nearby text. And I write my captions as descriptive as is reasonable. So what info can I add? The most obvious things would be twin-engined biplane on floats; all of which are covered in the first sentence of the lede. I could add that it's a B/W photo or maybe that it shows the Imperial German Maltese cross marking, but the first one seems rather pointless and the second is pretty trivial. What would you suggest?
- There is an explanatory essay (MOS:ALTTEXT), and plenty of good guidance online -- I quite like this one from Harvard. With that said, the bar at the moment is "literally better than nothing", as the alt attributes are blank -- with your writing credits, I doubt you'll have a problem clearing that! UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly there aren't any guidelines for what is good alt text...
- No evident copyvio or other concerns.
- I would place a citation at the end of each of the "Type 1..." "Type 2..." etc lines, so that it's clear where this information comes from (in other words, treat each one line its own paragraph).
- Noting that this is not done. Reading the GA criteria strictly, they require reliable sources are cited ... no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose) -- whether we consider these as paragraphs or not, it's therefore unambiguous that each one needs an independent citation.
- I haven't forgotten, but that goes together with reworking the introductory info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Gotcha, no problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that this is not done. Reading the GA criteria strictly, they require reliable sources are cited ... no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose) -- whether we consider these as paragraphs or not, it's therefore unambiguous that each one needs an independent citation.
- Sources are well formatted and appear to be of good quality.
- Spot checks: could you please give me the quotation from the source to support:
- The start of World War I in August disrupted these plans, although many companies had already made considerable progress with their Type III designs. Rather than hold a competition, Idflieg decided to order small numbers of prototypes from the various manufacturers. (note 2, Grosz, pp. 1–2)
- Redundant now that I've eliminated that part.
- The Naval Air Service decided that it wanted floatplane equivalents of the Kampfflugzeuge and ordered one prototype from Gotha on 10 May 1915. (any one of 3, 4 and 5)
- The Gotha WD.7, Marine Number 119, was ordered on 10 May 1915. Designed by Karl Rösner and A. Klaube and originally intended as a three-seat Kampfflugzeuge to attack enemy aircraft, it was powered by two 120 hp Mercedes D.II engines.(Herris)
- On 14 April 1915, only two weeks after the first order of the G.I Kampffluzeuge was received, the navy ordered one Gotha UWD floatplane. It was assigned Marine Number 120.(Grosz)
- I'm not seeing the explicit desire to have floatplane equivalents of the Kampfflugzeuge in those quotes -- yes, that's what they ended up with, but I'm not seeing the floatplane configuration as so critical a piece of the specification as we make out. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Almost all of the combat aircraft operated by the German Navy were seaplanes of one sort or another, but maybe that's given as read by the authors, I dunno. I'll get rid of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the explicit desire to have floatplane equivalents of the Kampfflugzeuge in those quotes -- yes, that's what they ended up with, but I'm not seeing the floatplane configuration as so critical a piece of the specification as we make out. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- When the Allies inspected the German seaplane bases in December 1918, they recorded a single surviving WD.7 at Hage. Its ultimate fate is unknown, but it was likely scrapped (note 10, Andersson & Sanger, p. 18)
- This is a list of every aircraft found by the Allies on that date, page 18 lists the sole WD.7 at Hage.
- The start of World War I in August disrupted these plans, although many companies had already made considerable progress with their Type III designs. Rather than hold a competition, Idflieg decided to order small numbers of prototypes from the various manufacturers. (note 2, Grosz, pp. 1–2)
I've addressed everything except the revisions to the background para and the spot checks. See if my changes are satisfactory thus far.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: how is this looking? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- See if my changes are satisfactory; I've cut a lot of background material out, but I think that it holds together.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2024 (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.