 | Blohm & Voss BV 40 is currently a Warfare good article nominee. Nominated by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) at 11:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: German glider fighter |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blohm & Voss BV 40 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Blohm & Voss BV 40 from de.wikipedia. |
Huh? edit
"Its key features were a very narrow (and thus hard to hit) cross section as result of being a glider..." Why does the fact that its a glider make a difference to the cross-section? Can somebody with a better understanding of aerodynamics clarify this part, please? WikiReaderer 20:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The cross section was narrow because there was no engine. Compare the cross section of the Bv 40 with that of the Bf 109 or Fw 190. 2603:800C:3944:BC00:1D87:FB75:E69E:9E61 (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Blohm & Voss BV 40/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 14:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Another interesting article from Sturmvogel 66 covering one of the unusual aircraft projects that seemed to proliferate at the end of the Second World War. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Comments edit
- Overall, the standard is high, meeting the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice..
- It is of sufficient length, with 1,660 words of readable prose.
- The lead is short, but reasonable given the length of the article, at 149 words.
- 77.7% of authorship is by Sturmvogel 66, with contributions from 35 other editors.
- It is currently assessed as a C class article.
- I have made some minor grammar fixes. Please check them and adjust if necessary.
- I have also used the German for the name of the DLR.
- In the lead, "6" is used rather than "six". I feel that it flows better that way given the subsequent "21", but highlight it in case you wish to make the change.
- The MoS says the same format should be used for like objects, so I used the numeral rather than spelling out 21.
- The image is public domain and tagged appropriately.
- There are many volumes of Secret Projects of the Luftwaffe. Is it Volume 7 that is referred to here? There is mention of the aircraft in Volume 1 as well.
- They're not formally numbered. I used the latest one, which doesn't use the same title format as the earlier volumes. I have Wings, Profiles, and Projects of the early ones; which one are you referring to?
- Spot checks confirm Mrazek 2011 and Nowarra 1993. Suggest adding a translated title to the latter.
- Good idea.
@Sturmvogel 66: Excellent work as usual. Please do take a look at my comments and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) @Simongraham: Don't forget about the review for Basilisk.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)