Talk:Gordon Gollob/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I'm going to conduct a light c/e, feel free to revert as needed. As always, thank you MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC) I question the description of Generalleutnant as Lieutenant General. While this is the literal translation, the equivalence is what matters IMO, and that is to Major general. I use p. 295 of Stein's quality book on the Waffen-SS, which lists all Waffen-SS ranks against Wehrmacht ranks and US Army ranks. General der Jagdflieger equated to lieutenant general, just like General der Artillerie etc. done, due note that General der Jagdflieger was not a military rank but a service position MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC) OK, that makes sense. It wasn't until the end of the article that I saw that. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC) I don't understand the rationale for the wider family information, like Zoe von Karajan and Carl Reininghaus. Can you clarify the relevance? Neither appear notable. If so, a redlink would be a great idea. If not, I'd drop them. All that is needed is to say his parents befriended McCouch and that explains his name. reworded slightly to make the connection better understood. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC) I don't understand the rationale for naming the RAF SQNLDR he shot down, along with the FLTLT later on. I found somewhat conflicting information as to whom these aerial victories were credited to. I tried to express this in the footnotes linked to these events. My motivation here, give other editors context and a well-documented entry point to help clarify these victories. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC) 15 aircraft seems a lot for a single flight, more likely to be several flights, I'd just drop "a flight of" done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC) "Ratas" should probably be in double quote marks done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC) The beginning of the POW and later life section reads a bit weirdly, he was last in the custody of a US division, but then he's home? How do you express this correctly? The US allowed him to stay and live at his home nevertheless restricting his rights to travel and freedom. Is detention the right word for this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Ah, he was "released on parole". Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC) The quote from Steinhoff has no context, perhaps introduce him before the quote. I imagine Steinhoff had no reason to love Gollob, as Steinhoff was a member of the Galland faction, and Gollob contributed to Galland's downfall. Not sure it is even needed here, are there no positive quotes about Gollob that could be used to contrast with Steinhoff? I'm not sure about the reliability of the source for the Steinhoff quote either. done, see Fighter Pilots' Revolt in the High command section MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	times under 10:00 need a leading zero per MOS:TIME done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The Isby citation is to a 2002 book, but the one in the Bibliography is from 1998 done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC) No citation points to Schaulen No citation points to Williamson 2006 Both moved to "Further reading" MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I've listed the RK ceremony pic at FFD just to check it's OK. I'm afraid I am convinced by the second posters argument, MB. I don't think we need the pic to understand the text about the presentation, so I can't pass this criteria with the presentation pic in place. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC) fine, I removed the image MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC) The rest are fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for the FFD issue to be clarified, otherwise ready for promotion. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Passing. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)