 | Nieuport Triplane has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 22, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Nieuport Triplane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this one, comments will follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Comments as follows:
Lead
- This reads OK
Background
- This reads OK
Nieuport 10 Triplane
- Do we have a time frame for construction; presumably it was in 1915 if this is when the staggered wing arrangement was invented?
- It was patented on 10 Jan 1916, so presumably built in 1915, but no date of first flight is available.
- The aircraft was tested by the French in 1916,: presumably this testing was done by the French Army Aviation? Also approx timeframe?
- No more specific date is known.
Nieuport 17 Triplane
- Trenchard ordered the aircraft transferred to home for more thorough testing which were : suggest swapping out 'home' for 'England'. Also 'were' for 'was'
- Good idea to be more specific, but I'm not sure what you comment about swapping "were" for "was" applies to.
- The summary report showed: I would add 'RFC' ahead of 'summary'
- Over all is one word.
Nieuport 17bis triplane
- The fighter retained the same layout as the earlier single seater.: I assume you mean wing layout. Also specify which single seater
- The Nieuport 10 version was a two seater.
- Dur. Uppercut self-administered. Zawed (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Nieuport 10 version was a two seater.
- may have been because the biplane may have been : repeated 'may have been'
Bibliography
- The Owers ref lacks sufficient info for place of publication
- The n.p. means no place of publication given
- It suddenly came to me a few days afterwards what that n.p. meant, but by then you had already responded. A further uppercut self-administered. Zawed (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- The n.p. means no place of publication given
Other stuff
- No dupe links
- Image tags look fine.
That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review this. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- All the changes look acceptable to me, and I made a couple more tweaks to close this all off. Happy to pass as GA as I believe that the article meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)