Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
* During the tests, the single fin proved to be only marginally stable, resulting in the V1 being modified with a twin tail, being destroyed in a crash after an engine failure on 21 December, 1935. does the second "being" need to be there? Shouldn't it be replaced with an "and" to link the two clauses?
* This is misleading based on the statement a paragraph earlier about the V3 being built with a twin-fin: This differed from the V3 in that the passenger portholes were removed and the single fin was replaced with two smaller ones. Spell out more clearly that the V1, V2 and V3 were initially built with a single fin.
* The whole bit about the cover story is unclear. See if you can sort it out better; perhaps a simple statement about its provenance would suffice, I dunno. Keep in mind that Hitler didn't renounce the Versailles Treaty until sometime in '35.
* The tests of the "twin—tailed" V4, V6 and V7 prototypes were positive and more prototypes like the V8 emerged as the forerunner of the long—range
reconnaissance version, while the V9 was tested as a high-speed
airliner. The machine was still flying in 1944. Which machine, the V9?
* What kind of MGs? MG 15, MG 17, what? Provide a link if one is available. What was their caliber in English units of measurements? You might as well provide any missing conversions now.
* Clean this up: The Autopilot-heading device was installed to maintain the heading only. Under the control of the
Siemens K4Ü device, the aircraft could be directed using the rudders.
* Did you know that you can shorten all named references like so:
[1] to
[1]? Although personally I just use a simple g5 or something similar to name the reference, simpler that way.
: I think I have corrected the major issues. Do I have to shorten the refs? Is this a requirement?
Dapi89 (
talk) 11:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
* Watch your hyphens and dashes. See
WP:DASH and
WP:HYPHEN for the proper usage. While not strictly necessary at this level, they'll matter a lot if you want to try for A-class.
* No production fighter was fitted with the DB 600, all shortages were because of production difficulties.
* The Do 17M could carry a bomb load of either 20 SC 50lb or two SC250lb bombs or 10 SC50lb and a single SC250lb bomb. SC bomb sizes were given in kg, not lbs.
* You are citing too often. Only one cite per paragraph is necessary if you're using the same source throughout unless making a controversial statement or quoting something.
* This needs to move later in the section: Due to a shortage of night fighters, at least one Do 17 P-1 was assigned to this role. A smooth metal sheet was installed in place of its glass nose and it was armed with three 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons. The machine operated under Luftflotte 1.[34
* Add a conversion from liters to gallons in the Z-6 section.
* These sentences in the Z section are redundant with the S and U section. Delete or combine them: The type was modified as a result of combat experience during the Spanish Civil War. The forward
fuselage was redesigned, with the cockpit area being "dropped", or extended further to enable a rear firing gunner position to be installed, and the
canopy extended aft, until it was nearly parallel with the
leading edge and
wing root. To test the design, the Do 17S and Do 17U were produced, both to be powered by the DB 600 power plants. However, a call for all DB 600 series engines to be reserved for fighters led to the variants being fitted with Bramo Fafnir 323 A radial engines. The bomb load was increased to 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) and a fourth crew member was added. It proved to be underpowered, so Bramo 323 P engines were then fitted. Only three Do 17S and 15 Do 17Us were built.
* Move the link to the MG FF cannon to the earliest mention in the Z section
* Combine these two sentences: The
Dornier Do 215B was later built in small numbers at Oberpfaffenhofen. Some 105 examples were built.
* Provide links to those Kampfgeschwader that have articles when they're first mentioned.
* You say: The Do 17 saw its usefulness diminish during the
French campaign, but don't really explain why. The very next sentence says how the crews liked it.
* This doesn't make sense as written. The bomber didn't get slower, the British and French fighters were faster than the Polish ones. It also fought with success during the Battle of France and losses were relatively light, although when facing modern fighters like the
Hawker Hurricane, the bomber proved slower and more vulnerable.
* Goss is correct both times as quoted. He wrote 4., 5. and 9./KG 2. 9./KG 2 means 9th Staffel since Staffel numbers were always written in Arabic numbers and Gruppen numbers were always in Roman numbers as you already know. So delete your notes.
* Do you mean Kampfgruppen or Kampfgeschwader here?: Included in its strength were KG 2 and KG 3, the only Kampfgruppe in a force of seven equipped with the Do 17.
* You're quite right to mention this, but you might want to add that this serial number doesn't match the RAF format. According to other sources 23 Yugoslavian Dorniers survived the April battles, and the RAF received a third machine which was given the serial 3363.
* Did the Croat Air Force use the Do 17 against the partisans? How many did it get? How many did the Bulgarians get? These need to be added to the summary listings as well.
Fixed most things. Some issues are technically incorrect.
* The DB 600 was in operation on production variant Bf 109s.
* I know that 50 kg does not equal 1,100 lb, the text clearly said ten 50 kg.
* The operational histories (Bulgaria and Croatia) are not complete. I have no information on partisan casualties. If I did I would gladly add them.
**No, it wasn't. The Bf 109 D had a Jumo 210. Only a couple of the prototype Bf 109 Es might have had DB 600s.
I have pulled your comments out of mine to make the page easier to follow.
Its probably best to avoid relying on the Bf 109 article for information. I've correct the Fesit citation in relation to D powerplants. It had been messed up. D-1s did have 600s.
Dapi89 (
talk) 10:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Your loss numbers for the Battle of Britian don't add up. The article states monthly losses of Do-17 as 70 (50 lost + 20 written off as unservicable) for August 1940, 50 for September 1940, October showed 36 more lost for a totla of 156 and yet two paragraphs later it says that their were only 132 Do-17s were destroyed. Which is the correct figure? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Xatsmann (
talk •
contribs) 17:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
References
I have done the Croatian stuff, but I don't have good sources for the Bulgarian figures. I am waiting for the IP to direct me to page numbers for his Bulgarian figures (the conversation is on my talk page).
Dapi89 (
talk) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:You still need to clarify the use as a glider tug in the main body as shown above.
User:Sturmvogel has gone on leave from wikipedia for three weeks and given the article is now finished and his latest comments addressed, I am hoping someone will complete the review. It seems unnecessary to wait three week to conclude formalities. Dapi89 ( talk) 10:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
* During the tests, the single fin proved to be only marginally stable, resulting in the V1 being modified with a twin tail, being destroyed in a crash after an engine failure on 21 December, 1935. does the second "being" need to be there? Shouldn't it be replaced with an "and" to link the two clauses?
* This is misleading based on the statement a paragraph earlier about the V3 being built with a twin-fin: This differed from the V3 in that the passenger portholes were removed and the single fin was replaced with two smaller ones. Spell out more clearly that the V1, V2 and V3 were initially built with a single fin.
* The whole bit about the cover story is unclear. See if you can sort it out better; perhaps a simple statement about its provenance would suffice, I dunno. Keep in mind that Hitler didn't renounce the Versailles Treaty until sometime in '35.
* The tests of the "twin—tailed" V4, V6 and V7 prototypes were positive and more prototypes like the V8 emerged as the forerunner of the long—range
reconnaissance version, while the V9 was tested as a high-speed
airliner. The machine was still flying in 1944. Which machine, the V9?
* What kind of MGs? MG 15, MG 17, what? Provide a link if one is available. What was their caliber in English units of measurements? You might as well provide any missing conversions now.
* Clean this up: The Autopilot-heading device was installed to maintain the heading only. Under the control of the
Siemens K4Ü device, the aircraft could be directed using the rudders.
* Did you know that you can shorten all named references like so:
[1] to
[1]? Although personally I just use a simple g5 or something similar to name the reference, simpler that way.
: I think I have corrected the major issues. Do I have to shorten the refs? Is this a requirement?
Dapi89 (
talk) 11:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
* Watch your hyphens and dashes. See
WP:DASH and
WP:HYPHEN for the proper usage. While not strictly necessary at this level, they'll matter a lot if you want to try for A-class.
* No production fighter was fitted with the DB 600, all shortages were because of production difficulties.
* The Do 17M could carry a bomb load of either 20 SC 50lb or two SC250lb bombs or 10 SC50lb and a single SC250lb bomb. SC bomb sizes were given in kg, not lbs.
* You are citing too often. Only one cite per paragraph is necessary if you're using the same source throughout unless making a controversial statement or quoting something.
* This needs to move later in the section: Due to a shortage of night fighters, at least one Do 17 P-1 was assigned to this role. A smooth metal sheet was installed in place of its glass nose and it was armed with three 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons. The machine operated under Luftflotte 1.[34
* Add a conversion from liters to gallons in the Z-6 section.
* These sentences in the Z section are redundant with the S and U section. Delete or combine them: The type was modified as a result of combat experience during the Spanish Civil War. The forward
fuselage was redesigned, with the cockpit area being "dropped", or extended further to enable a rear firing gunner position to be installed, and the
canopy extended aft, until it was nearly parallel with the
leading edge and
wing root. To test the design, the Do 17S and Do 17U were produced, both to be powered by the DB 600 power plants. However, a call for all DB 600 series engines to be reserved for fighters led to the variants being fitted with Bramo Fafnir 323 A radial engines. The bomb load was increased to 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) and a fourth crew member was added. It proved to be underpowered, so Bramo 323 P engines were then fitted. Only three Do 17S and 15 Do 17Us were built.
* Move the link to the MG FF cannon to the earliest mention in the Z section
* Combine these two sentences: The
Dornier Do 215B was later built in small numbers at Oberpfaffenhofen. Some 105 examples were built.
* Provide links to those Kampfgeschwader that have articles when they're first mentioned.
* You say: The Do 17 saw its usefulness diminish during the
French campaign, but don't really explain why. The very next sentence says how the crews liked it.
* This doesn't make sense as written. The bomber didn't get slower, the British and French fighters were faster than the Polish ones. It also fought with success during the Battle of France and losses were relatively light, although when facing modern fighters like the
Hawker Hurricane, the bomber proved slower and more vulnerable.
* Goss is correct both times as quoted. He wrote 4., 5. and 9./KG 2. 9./KG 2 means 9th Staffel since Staffel numbers were always written in Arabic numbers and Gruppen numbers were always in Roman numbers as you already know. So delete your notes.
* Do you mean Kampfgruppen or Kampfgeschwader here?: Included in its strength were KG 2 and KG 3, the only Kampfgruppe in a force of seven equipped with the Do 17.
* You're quite right to mention this, but you might want to add that this serial number doesn't match the RAF format. According to other sources 23 Yugoslavian Dorniers survived the April battles, and the RAF received a third machine which was given the serial 3363.
* Did the Croat Air Force use the Do 17 against the partisans? How many did it get? How many did the Bulgarians get? These need to be added to the summary listings as well.
Fixed most things. Some issues are technically incorrect.
* The DB 600 was in operation on production variant Bf 109s.
* I know that 50 kg does not equal 1,100 lb, the text clearly said ten 50 kg.
* The operational histories (Bulgaria and Croatia) are not complete. I have no information on partisan casualties. If I did I would gladly add them.
**No, it wasn't. The Bf 109 D had a Jumo 210. Only a couple of the prototype Bf 109 Es might have had DB 600s.
I have pulled your comments out of mine to make the page easier to follow.
Its probably best to avoid relying on the Bf 109 article for information. I've correct the Fesit citation in relation to D powerplants. It had been messed up. D-1s did have 600s.
Dapi89 (
talk) 10:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Your loss numbers for the Battle of Britian don't add up. The article states monthly losses of Do-17 as 70 (50 lost + 20 written off as unservicable) for August 1940, 50 for September 1940, October showed 36 more lost for a totla of 156 and yet two paragraphs later it says that their were only 132 Do-17s were destroyed. Which is the correct figure? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Xatsmann (
talk •
contribs) 17:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
References
I have done the Croatian stuff, but I don't have good sources for the Bulgarian figures. I am waiting for the IP to direct me to page numbers for his Bulgarian figures (the conversation is on my talk page).
Dapi89 (
talk) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:You still need to clarify the use as a glider tug in the main body as shown above.
User:Sturmvogel has gone on leave from wikipedia for three weeks and given the article is now finished and his latest comments addressed, I am hoping someone will complete the review. It seems unnecessary to wait three week to conclude formalities. Dapi89 ( talk) 10:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)