Talk:List of Zeppelins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Aviation Portal

List

This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated projects or task forces:

	Aircraft WikiProject

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military aviation task force

LZ69 and LZ11 are described as being 'halled in'. Is this a misspelling of 'hauled'? Given that a zeppelin was basically a balloon on a rope, it makes sense that one could have been hauled in. However, if they were stored in 'halls' it is also conceivable that this is a specialist term meaning 'put in its hall'. If the latter, perhaps we could do with an explanation of the term in the article? If the former, we need to correct the spelling. Brequinda 07:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The latter is right, to hall in is a jargon term. I am, however, not sure how commonly it was used in English, wheras the German analogue "einhallen" is frequently found even in recent publications on the subject. I will add a short note at the first occurence in the table. – J.Rohrer 15:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone did a lot of work on this list, but some of the information is wrong. For an early example, the cause given for the loss of L 2 was given as "exploding engine" when Dr. Robinson considered the cause was due to explosion of hydrogen drawn from the interior of the ship.

Can as there are NO sources provided, can anyone explain the origins of this listing?Mark Lincoln 02:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article/List Credibility

This is an interesting and informative list but there doesn't seem to have been any further comment as to where the information is coming from. There is at least one potentially fairly defamatory comment, (which I've highlighted), needing citation; otherwise I'd suggest it should be removed. (Of course if its true and verifiably so, then it should stay). I'm no expert in this field but in terms of the list's overall verifiability, there would seem to be some serious questions. I'm hoping that these can be resolved with a bit of referencing and citation, from those in the know. Scoop100 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are sources for the King Stephen incitend: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9804EED7173AE433A25750C0A9659C946696D6CF

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/02_february/15/io_airraids.shtml

- Andromedos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.97.5 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)