Talk:Junkers Ju 90

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: This is still Start I am afraid. This article uses only two references, one of which (the forum) is not a reliable source per our guidelines on verifiable sources. Also, there are question marks on the images, they could be speedily deleted as they don't have explicit release under the GFDL. The owner of the images needs to explicitly say what licence the images are released under, permission for use only on Wikipedia means they will be deleted.
What you need to do to get it up to B is to add citations to the variants section, expanding on those variants. You also need to expand the lead per WP:LEAD. It needs to completely summarise the article. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave a note on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: We have this as 28/7/37 from the EADS site, Turner and Nowarra's book gives 7/6/37.  How to resolve this?TSRL (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First flight

message: Left the date as the later one.  The article could do with another reliable source on the "only 6" 90As "delivered to Lufthansa" claim, as Goldenyears seems to have all eight civil registered and with DLH names before Luftwaffe service.  Could also do with evidence for the service in the Norwegian campaign.  No ref quoted seems to mention this. Likewise the claim about productivity vis a vis the Ju 52, as the forum is judged not reliable.  Can't see it there, anyway!  Final missing ref is for the statement that the SA aircraft went to Lufthansa: GoldenYears and EADES and the hugojunkers site all say Luftwaffe.TSRL (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found support for Norway involvement amongst the serials at hugojunkers, and also further support for the idea that the SA machines went straight to Luftwaffe; cut "the back to Lufthansa" bit out.  The question: did the V5&6 get the new wing etc, as EADES and hugojunkers say, or was the v7 the first to get it (Turner & Nowarra) seems hard to answer.  hugojunkers is self-contradictory in places (not on this) so can't count as an "ultimate source".  Maybe someone with Nowarra's 290/390 book could find more detail?TSRL (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an image on the "forum" site, taken from an unidentified book that shows what is claimed to be V5.  It has the original wing, a portholed body and certainly the more elliptical fins/rudder of the V7.  The caption also claims it has the  
Ju 290 powerplants. Except for the revised empennage, which Turner and Nowarra don't mention, this seems in line with their account of V5, the one on our page.  The only problem is with the id of the aircraft, which bears no discernable markings.  The caption asserts it is V5, ex-DAEDS, but GoldenYears have that reg on a standard a series and the V5 as either D-ANSB or D-ABNS (Luftwaffe KH+XB).TSRL (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Queries

message: Noted the image caption was wrong: since the machine is armed it is most likely the V8.  Is that the V7 lurking in the distance?TSRL (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Junkers Ju 90. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/hjunkers/ju_who_z.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/hjunkers/ju_ju90_a1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified