Wikipedia

Talk:Kurt Wolff (aviator)/GA1

< Talk:Kurt Wolff (aviator)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Georgejdorner in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago70 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 07:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a look at this one. Comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

As a general comment, there is not a huge amount of content here. Presumably this is a reflection of the sources, but for avoidance of doubt, is there anything to be added in relation to the names of parents, how they died, and any siblings? Also his service in the war up until he joined the air service?

  • While I could not add any factoids, I did expand Early life with general background material.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Early life

  • Recite and link the proper name of the army, ditto the air service. Actually, it is my understanding the "German Army" had national contingents, eg. Saxon, Bavarian, Prussian. Which one did he join?
  • Link commission

Fighter pilot

  • ...and was assigned to 2-seater unit Kampfstaffel 26 This is unclear, Kampfstaffel 26 can't be a 2-seater unit, but presumably it operated 2-seater aircraft. What type?
    • Clarified to distinguish bomber units using two-seater aircraft. Source does not give exact type.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The lead mentions three bomber units but this isn't clear here. Was he serving on the Western Front/Eastern Front?
    • Three bomber units are distinctly listed. Sources do not give the front they served on. I have added English translations of the unit names.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • My issue here was that in the original text it was not immediately evident that they were bomber units. Zawed (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • translation for the German unit names
  • the then undistinguished Jagdstaffel 11 Why was it undistinguished?
    • It had scored zero victories to that date. "Undistinguished" is from source. I changed it to "victoryless".Georgejdorner (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • command was given to Manfred von Richthofen. Under the Red Baron's leadership,... What was his rank at the time. It also needs to specify that he was the Red Baron. I actually think to use Red Baron to refer to Ricthofen is a bit non-encyclopedic (it is OK to mention that was his nickname though). This comment also applies to the lead. Also did he have that nickname at the time he joined? From the Richthofen article, he only started painting his aircraft red when he became a squadron commander.
    • If WP followed its own rules of listing under the best-known name, Manfred von Richthofen is best known to the general public as the Red Baron, and should be listed as such. Most folks, when asked to name the Red Baron, are clueless. However, I have clarified the nickname, even though the color of his airplane is irrelevant to this article. As for his WP article...so many editors churn so many edits through it, I pay it no attention.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • My point was that if his nickname is derived from the time he started painting his plane red, which seemed to only happen once he took over, then it seems inappropriate to immediately refer to him as the Red Baron. Presumably it took some time for the nickname to become established afterwards. Zawed (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • A quick peek at The Red Baron's Combat Wing shows his Albatros D.V was painted red as early as January 1917. My memory says his earlier model Albatros was also red. However, this niggling is ridiculous. I am half inclined to delete all reference to the Red Baron nickname, even though it is the main point of interest for the average reader.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • When introducing Richthofen, its OK to state he was known, or later known as the case may be, as the Red Baron. However, as noted above I find its subsequent use in identifying Richthofen to be non-encyclopedic. Zawed (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • And I find it unencyclopedic that Richthofen is not listed as the Red Baron per policy, as were Gorgeous George, Pappy Boyington, etc. As it is, the very top of Richthofen's article is all about his being the Red Baron.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • You seem to be getting hung up on the name of the Richthofen article rather than addressing my comment. A wrestler is not a particularly good example and if you notice in the Pappy Boyington article, at no point is "Pappy" used to refer to the subject when in Wiki voice. It is always Boyington (or he). Zawed (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Like the rest of the Jasta,... No antecedence for Jasta. Presumably it is short for Jagdstaffel but that hasn't been stated.
  • His tally of victories seem to be glossed over; can some more detail be worked into the narrative? I note the lead says He would score same day multiple victories on several occasions,... but here there are only two such occasions mentioned, so not several.
    • The recitation of 33 victories quickly becomes boring. On the other hand, an actual list clogs up the article's flow. In the past, I have whipped an accompanying list as a separate linked article. I am going to think on this one.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I agree RE a list is not to everyone's taste (I don't prefer them myself), but I think there are ways to expand on this as a summary form, to add interest for the reader but without necessarily reciting each kill. For example, were several shot down from the same squadron, or in the same location, or were predominately the same aircraft types. He shot down 22 in Bloody April but seven were in two days, so was there periods where he had a "dry spell" and so on. Where was his squadron based at the time, did they move about, what was the type of missions being flown, patrols, and so on. Zawed (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • The enumeration of Wolff's Bloody April victories would take up an entire section by itself...and to what purpose? A dry regurgitation of old combat results?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The purpose would be to inform the reader. I have provided some suggestions above for expanding without necessarily reciting them all. Zawed (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I broke out a section called Bloody April to recount Wolff's April victories.
  • I also created and linked a victory list to the article.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • I'm happy with that; it adds some context for how he accumulated his victories so quickly. Zawed (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Where was the Jasta serving at the time, can we be more detailed than just Western Front
  • Suggest context for the quote, e.g. Karl Bodenschatz, a fellow fighter pilot who served with Wolff, described him as: "Quote..."
Actually, Bodenschatz was the non-flying Adjutant of Jasta 11, and I have designated him as such.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Wolff was awarded the coveted Pour Le Mérite... usage of coveted comes across as editorializing
    • Changed 'coveted' to 'prestigious'...though I believe I copied 'coveted' from source.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • ...on 4 May and on 6 May... Close usage of dates/months. Suggest: "on 4 May and two days later..."
  • replacing Lt. von Dornheim recite rank in full.
  • who had fallen in combat. comes across as editorializing: suggest "who had been shot down and killed." or similar
    • "Fallen in combat" is synonymous with "killed in action". Is "killed in action" editorializing? Now if I had written, "his glorious fall had taken place in heroic battle", that would be editorializing...and peacocking.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • link Major, Flight Sub-Lieutenant, No. 1 Naval Squadron, Leutnant
    • Linked all but No. 1 Naval Squadron, which is already linked.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Combine the last sentence of this section into the next section, it looks odd on its own.

Final fight

  • I'm confused here. We jump from Jasta 11 in the final sentence of the previous section to Jagdgeschwader 1 in the first sentence of this section.
    • Wrote explanation of Jasta 11 and JG I into previous section.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Link Memel, Flight Lieutenant, No. 10 Squadron Royal Naval Air Service. If No. 1 Naval Squadron (previous section) was part of the RNAS, the link to the Royal Naval Air Service should be there on its first mention, not here.
    • Link to RNAS is not very useful, as it was merged into the RAF on 1 April 1918. Linked instead to history of existing 210 RAF squadron.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Linked Memel, 210 Squadron. Rewrite eliminated need to link Flight Lieutenant.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Suggest the information about MacGregor's victory count and DSC (recite in full) be moved to a footnote rather than being part of the main article. which is after all about Wolff.
    • Deleted it. An interested reader can click on the McGregor link.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Move the sentence about his remains to immediately follow that relating to his crash. That way the discussion about being the leading Albatross ace finishes off the article, along with mention of awards.
    • Claim to being leading Albatros ace is bogus per WP:SPS, and has been deleted. Account of his burial has been expanded. Honors accounted forGeorgejdorner (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Wervik stated in body of article but Moorslede in infobox.
    • Moorslede is 14.8 kms north of Wervik (or so says Google maps, when I checked). Wolff was apparently flying north over Wervik when hit and crashed near Moorslede. I rewrote to reflect this.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Is it possible to put his awards as part of the overall narrative instead of a list at the end? I appreciate that may not be possible for all of them, but that could be dealt by mentioning them at the end. E.g. As well as the Pour Le Mérite, Wolff was awarded the..."
  • Is the Order Pour le Mérite the same as Pour Le Mérite (also note le vs Le)? Both are linked but aren't dupe links.
    • The Pour le Mérite is an order, and not a medal. I have edited to make this distinction.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I might add that the Order consists of the recipients of the Pour le Mérite award.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Endnotes

  • Suggest using the cite web template for the Aerodrome refs.
  • So that the title serves as the link, not the [1]. Zawed (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Other stuff

  • Image tags check out OK.
  • One dupe link: Albatros D.III.

That's my initial pass done. Will check back in a few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

General comments by nominator: Need a break. Will return to finish off last few items above, then append general comments here.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Pause needed: I believe I have addressed most of your list of concerns. I have also rewritten some sections in the process. I would recommend that you doublecheck my work while I research the questions of aerial victories and "jasta" locations.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Addenda: I have added a candid photo of Wolff to the article.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done (I hope): I can find no items unaddressed. Time to move on to Carl Menckhoff.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • This is looking good, your hard work has made a big difference and this is close to getting wrapped up. I have added a couple of comments above, plus a few more below:
  • In the lead: before being picked for fighter aviation. suggest "before being posted to a fighter squadron, the Royal Prussian Jagdstaffel 11."
  • I used the word 'picked' judiciously. Richthofen had the unique privilege of being allowed to select his own pilots, rather than accept personnel assigned to him willy-nilly.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • In the lead: Flying Circus is used twice but I think the first mention isn't quite right as it was until later that it was formed.
  • As the Flying Circus was formed partway through the tutelage, I have deleted the phrase.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • In the lead: On 6 May 1917, after 29 victories,... suggest: "On 6 May 1917, having achieved 29 victories,..."
  • Slight rewrite.
  • Is there a link to the Prussian Knight's Cross?
  • No. The Prussian Knight's Cross is a class of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • To be more exact, the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern is a Prussian award. The Knight's Cross is a class of that award that acknowledges the recipient's military prowess.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Wolff was assigned to command Royal Prussian Jagdstaffel 29: missing a "the"? Same for the mention of this in the lead.
  • translation for leutnant?
  • Some of the Wolff in command section is out of chronological order. We have him returning to command of Jagdstaffel 11 before being informed that he had taken over it.
  • Rewritten. The difficulty is in chronologically placing the quote--which is just too great to lose.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Manfred von Richthofen was raised to lead the new wing. Inheriting Richthofen's Jagdstaffel 11 command and leading... Suggest: As von Richthofen was appointed to lead the new wing, Wolff became commander of Jagdstaffel 11. Leading..."
  • In the final flight section, delink Belgium. Probably not necessary to link a country that is a current state. There is also an inconsistency in how time is presented in this section.
  • Deleted link to Belgium (another inheritance). Time discrepancy is probably due to difference between British and German times caused by daylight saving time. So 1630 is (probably) the same as 1730. An explanatory footnote perhaps?Georgejdorner (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Added footnote.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Strictly speaking, his victory tally of 33, mentioned in the lead, isn't in the body. I suggest adding it as the final sentence of the final paragraph. Something like: "At the time of his death, he was credited with having destroyed 33 enemy aircraft." Then move the "see also" Aerial victory standards to follow that so that they are close together. I think that would be a more natural flow for the See also section.
  • Final victories inserted. I think the See alsos serve best where they are.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Looks like some dupelinks have crept in with your additions: Memel, Pour le Mérite (in the Bodenschatz quote), Jagdgeschwader I (twice in the lead, and twice in the body). Zawed (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • By the time the reader gets to Memel in the last para, they have lost track of reading it in the first para of the body. I left both iterations linked because of this. Other dupe links eliminated.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • In the course of converting the web cites so I could pass this article, I notice an issue with the first usage of the Jasta 11 reference. It only supports the location of Jasta 11 at the time Wolff joined, it doesn't support his posting there. It's probably just a consequence of the expansion work, an earlier version of the article had Franks & Giblin as the cite for the original paragraph. The aerodrome entry for Wolff also has a different date for his joining. Zawed (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I slightly rewrote this sentence, though the original was okay. Corrected joining date.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comment on citations

If you are going to change cites willy-nilly as a condition of passing nominations, I wish you would say so before I waste tedious hours posting my preferred form of cite. I don't think the general reader is well served by the form of cite you insist on, but I will put up with it as a condition of passing the nom. I do resent having the cites changed without prior discussion. I think you are a terrific reviewer. I also think you overstepped your role as a reviewer in this instance.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
We'll have to agree to disagree on the web cite format, I happen to believe the general reader is better served with the present form not least because it gives them a larger target to click on if following the link, handy for those users with smaller screens/handheld devices. I had suggested the change in my initial review comments and your response was "Why?", to which I replied. With no further response or action on your part, I opted to attend to it myself to progress things. FWIW some of your responses have come across being less than co-operative. If you are going to submit articles for the GA process, and I hope you do because I think German WWI aces are bit underdone on Wikipedia, you may want to consider how your responses come across to someone who has invested some time in providing feedback with a view to improving the article. Moving along, while there are a couple of things that I'm not 100% happy with, I'm also not going to die in a ditch over what are in minor matters. I believe that this article is GA worthy, it provides reasonable coverage of the subject, is fully cited, reads well and is appropriately illustrated. Passing as GA now. Zawed (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
You asked about changing cites to the Aerodrome--which amounts to three cites. If I had understood you meant all cites..well, I didn't.
You make an excellent point concerning those postage stamp screens, and one I had not thought of. However, once they click down to that garble of Franks, VanWyngarden, Kilduff, etc., what have they learned? I prefer the title form of cite because the average reader can gain some idea of the source from the title. It's a more reader-friendly cite. However, now you point out you thought you were being helpful, I can see why you are unhappy. I hope you can appreciate why I was unhappy to correct all those cites, just to see them changed.
However, if your form of cite is the price I have to pay to have you for a reviewer, I'll gladly do it. As I said above, I think you are a terrific reviewer--probably the best I have ever had. When you see my first GAN on Noltenius, you will see how bad a reviewer can be.
And yes, I tend to be blunt in my replies. It's not meant as discourtesy, but as a business-like approach. I am not purposely discourteous, rude, or insulting. I don't fight corrections of fact. If you will look back at the above review, you will see I adopt useful suggestions. But I will stand for my views in a controversy. And I do appreciate a heads-up on major changes.
My ultimate aim is always a better WP article. Thank you for an insightful and very useful review.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurt_Wolff_(aviator)/GA1&oldid=997544097"