Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.35/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 10:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies, completely passed me by. Will complete ASAP. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede is very short which reflects the article, but maybe one more sentence about the location of the plane's service would be useful
Link seaplane torpedo bomber
"A FF.35 with axles installed underneath its floats" suggests that this plane was one of many; The FF.35... might be a better caption
Imperial German Navy isn't mentioned in main text

A bit nit-picky, but World War I isn't actually mentioned in main text
The phrase torpedo bomber could be mentioned and linked a bit earlier on than the third paragraph imo
"which was more than existing aircraft"
- That would work if it was part of an independent clause, but not in this case, IMO--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"it was a conventional" we skip very quickly from the Naval Office ordering what one assumes was multiple designs to describing the FF.35 in particular. A word or two connecting the original order to the subsequent design would make the start of the second paragraph much less jarring
Why isn't Flugzeugbau Friedrichshafen mentioned in the main text?
"Although no further examples were built" Considering this bit is covered later on, I don't think it needs saying here when the reader doesn't yet have the context to understand why. Better to just go straight into the design influencing the FF.41
"formed the basis for the more successful FF.41" considering the short length of the article, I don't think it would be amiss to add a little on how the FF.35 impacted the FF.41

"The SVK placed an order in February 1915" would be useful to categorically say that this was for one prototype, as this isn't mentioned anywhere
I don't think 300 needs to be italicised
"structurally obsolete by the time it was delivered." How so? Elaboration here would be useful
- I wish I could, but the source doesn't go into any detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"September 1916" no need to repeat the date
Annoying that there's no concrete information for the fate of the aircraft?
- You bet. It's really surprised me that so few German records have survived, but I hadn't anticipated that the Allies basically killed off the German aviation industry after the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does the "n.p." stand for?
- No place.
You might think about splitting Ref. #1 out through the paragraph if possible
- I prefer to consolidate all cites to a single source in one big cite if at all possible.
AGF with print references

@Sturmvogel 66: Hi, thanks for being incredibly patient with my tardiness. My comments are above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Don't sweat it, I've taken longer to get finish reviews. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: I see your comments here, and am happy with those, but don't think you've edited the actual article? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]