Talk:Zeppelin-Staaken L

Zeppelin-Staaken L is currently a Warfare good article nominee. Nominated by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) at 16:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / European / German / World War I

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zeppelin-Staaken L/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 19:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim[edit]

No duplicated links
Image correctly licensed
Article is stable
Earwig reports no copyvio

Lede and infobox[edit]

What happened to the six later orders? Neither main text nor lede mentions their fate
What's the WD.27? The only mention is in the lede header
The idea that it is "long range" is in lede and infobox but not clearly mentioned in main text, suggest adding a word or two to ensure this is cited

Background and description[edit]

While I am aware of your reluctance to repeat content in the lede in main text for short articles, I really think you need to do more of it here. The lede is a summary of the main text, not an introduction to it. Please add mention of WWI, the Imperial German Navy, and the tractor-pusher nature of the engines. This content is currently uncited, being only present in the lede
Link Otto Philipp if that's the correct one?
Link Zeppelin-Staaken
Link Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI
"bombardardier's" sp
"Balanced ailerons..." for this and the following sentence, do we know what impact these features/changes had?
You name a lot of different roles for the aircraft, which I assume will have been shared by the crew. To avoid confusion, could you mention the crew complement earlier than the "Specifications" section?
What's a gravity tank?

History[edit]

Link Warnemünde

References[edit]

References look good, I can find no sources that expand on this article. AGF for print sources.

@Sturmvogel 66: Hi, that's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]