Talk:Supermarine Walrus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 08:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Cropping isn't a creative act covered by copyright. You need to copy over all the licensing info from the original photo.
 * Done. AM


 * Photos from British magazines after 1928 are still in US copyright.
 * Magazine images removed. AM


 * What's the source of File:Supermarine Walrus at Royal Naval Air Station Bermuda at Boaz Island.jpg?
 * No idea, so image removed. AM


 * You have two identical photos, find a substitute for one of them.
 * Sorted, dup image removed. AM


 * Primarily used as a reconnaissance aircraft, it was the first British squadron-service aircraft to incorporate a fully retractable main undercarriage, crew accommodation that was enclosed, and a fuselage completely made of metal. Needs a cite
 * Sorted. AM


 * I would strongly suggest merging the Development and Design paragraphs together, leading off with the rationale for the program and order for a prototype, transitioning to the description and finishing with the production info. I believe that that would flow much more smoothly, preventing issues like describing the changes made between the prototype and production aircraft before you've even described the aircraft at all.
 * Sections reordered as suggested, titles amended as well.


 * Always tell the reader what type of ship (with links!) one is when introducing it to the reader
 * Done. AM
 * I was thinking more of a simple battleship or heavy cruiser, but links to the class will do. Be advised, though, that you've now got a lot of duplicate links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Dup links now removed. AM


 * Explicate the orders for the Seagull V in more detail. Was it just RAN and just 24 aircraft?
 * Sorted. AM


 * The term and associated link maritime reconnaissance or patrol aircraft should be used rather than simply reconnaissance or observation.
 * Done. AM


 * plywood wings were of equal span wings awkward
 * Sorted. AM


 * Link sweepback, float, rudder, tail wheel, taxi, crane
 * Done. AM


 * Suggest deleting the cost conversions as capital costs have increased far more rapidly than have consumer costs.
 * Done. AM


 * Add production numbers for each to the variant section
 * Done. AM
 * Serials of each batch not generally necessary, FYI--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll remove them. as I think they clutter up the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Still a few more things to go through, but this will get you started.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Above comments addressed (hopefully). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see any usage of Aircraft of the RAAF. If I haven't missed a cite, move it down to the further reading section. Fix these minor remaining issues and we'll be done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)