This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: - do you have access to a digital copy of the two Gordon sources that I could have for spotchecking the sources for this article? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I can copy them for you if you'd like. Gordon's mostly working off primary sources from what I've seen, hence the very atypical level of detail found in his articles. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you could get me a few pages so I can spot check the sources, that'd be great. (I generally don't think this will be a problem with your articles, but ... ) Let me drop you an email so you can email it back to me. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
"The Board of Inspection concluded that the D-1 was "not considered safe or useful for general purposes because of its excessive wing loading and inadequate lateral control", but that "it was suitable for advanced training and machine-gun tests because of the forward cockpit arrangements for a gunner; that flights should be restricted to harbors and not the open sea"." is sourced to Gordon part 8A p. 40 which supports the information
"The main float was sub-divided into numerous water-tight compartments, some of which contained fuel. A small rudder was fitted to the central float to allow the aircraft to maneuver on the water" is sourced to Gordon part 8B p. 17 which supports the information
Lead:
Suggest (not required) simplifying "returning it to the factory later that year to have its deficiencies remedied" to "returning it to the factory later that year to remedy its deficiencies"
Background:
"One reason that the Navy ordered the aircraft as it wished to evaluate Gallaudet's novel propulsion configuration" did you mean "One reason that the Navy ordered the aircraft was it wished to evaluate Gallaudet's novel propulsion configuration"? It reads very odd to this American as written now
suggest "design of the empennage (tail assembly) and its control surfaces was" to avoid making readers click away to another article
"aluminium" since this is an article on a US aircraft - should be "aluminum"
Development:
"and the company received a two-month extension from the Navy" suggest clarifying which company as the previous company mentioned is Duesenberg.
"These were enough to reveal the cooling problems" "the colling problems" implies that we've mentioned the problems before - but we haven't - what sort of cooling problems were there?
I did a few small copyedits - please check that they didn't break anything.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review this; I think that I've addressed all of the issues that you've pointed out. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
b (lists):
