- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Otto Jäger
- ... that on 2 May 1917, flying ace Otto Jäger was wounded by a propeller? Source: O'Connor, p. 130: "Jäger's time at the unit was abruptly ended on May 2, 1917, when...he was struck across both legs by a revolving propeller...."
- ALT1: ... that on 2 May 1917, flying ace Otto Jäger had to leave his unit when he was wounded by a propeller? Source: Same as ALT0.
** ALT2: ... that after being declared unfit for fighting, flying ace Otto Jäger went on to shoot down seven planes in Russia and Italy? Source: see article
5x expanded by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 02:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC).
- :comments - after being hit by a propellor his wounds seem less than you might predict. I have suggested an alt as he also went to some lengths to return to fighting the enemy Victuallers (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am puzzled by the comment above. How does the supposition that Jäger's wound is not so serious a reason to downgrade ALT0 and ALT1? Especially it put him in hospital for three months.
- As for ALT2, it is true---of a great majority of all aces on both sides. It's rare to find an ace who served in the air from the start of his career. In other words, ALT2 is a, So what?Georgejdorner (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Downgrade??? Alt is short for ALTernative! (not for preferred). It made me smile. You could be right that people say "So What!, why everyone knows that most WW1 Aces were originally declared unfit for combat, but surely there must be one who got hurt by a propellor. Oh Wow! look here you lot ..." Victuallers (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- For clarity's sake...I know of hundreds of aces invalided into aerial service, but this is the only case I know of where someone was injured by a propeller.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- ... and its an ALT. Good to talk. Victuallers (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- ... and its an ALT. Good to talk. Victuallers (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- For clarity's sake...I know of hundreds of aces invalided into aerial service, but this is the only case I know of where someone was injured by a propeller.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Downgrade??? Alt is short for ALTernative! (not for preferred). It made me smile. You could be right that people say "So What!, why everyone knows that most WW1 Aces were originally declared unfit for combat, but surely there must be one who got hurt by a propellor. Oh Wow! look here you lot ..." Victuallers (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Thank you for for a respectful article about a brave man. Please would you sort out Jäger's year of birth (1890 or 1894?) and his age at death? This is an important aspect for a war hero who dies in action, because he was only 23 or 27 years old when he died, which is striking for us today (if sadly normal in that era). The contrast between his age and his awards/achievements might also make a good hook? Meanwhile although ALT2 is fine because it shows what kind of a man he was, ALTs 0 and 1 are comparatively weak because unlike ALT2 they don't tell us why/how he was an ace.
- Summary: as this nom stands at the moment, we need the
correct date of birth, age at death,and (if you like) a hook contrasting his youth with his achievements.
When these matters are sorted out, this nom should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Correction made. There is nothing noteworthy about his youth. Many WWI aces were teenagers.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Georgejdorner for the correction. As for the age, I guess it depends on what one considers noteworthy. Many of our WP historical biographical subjects died young of e.g. tuberculosis, and that tragedy always matters as a historical context, whether or not they are one of many early deaths during their era. That fact may not contribute to their notability as an article subject, but an early death, and consequently age at death, is always a notable part of a biography.
- Notability as used to distinguish articles worthy of inclusion in WP is different from interest-factors in hooks, which is what we are looking for here. Yes, dying at age 23 was not unusual for WW1 and WW2 pilots and rear gunners, but it was and always will be a notable tragedy for each one, and a special point of interest for each one. Many readers will feel involved in this matter - my own father joined the RAF as a pilot during WW2 at the age of 18. Many of his colleagues died in action (and even more in training, but that's another story). He and one colleague survived, but both were severely damaged emotionally for life by that experience.
- No article and no hook about military personnel who died tragically young, should be written as if such tragedy does not count, just because it was not unusual at that time. Dying young is one of the aspects of their bravery, and is not something to be hidden or to be blasé about. I don't mind if you don't want a hook that mentions it, but please don't tell me that dying young in action is not notable (in whatever context that fact is used). I have filled in the infobox template to show age at death, myself.
- Correction made. There is nothing noteworthy about his youth. Many WWI aces were teenagers.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Good to go with ALT2 (for reasons given in my review above). Storye book (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Because I am a disabled combat veteran, I do not denigrate my fellow veterans, regardless of their nationality. I objected to a mundane hook, not notability. ALT2 might as well read, "Otto Jäger fought in World War I.", to which a reader's reaction is going to be, So what? A DYK hook is supposed to be "short, punchy, catchy". ALT2 fails that test; it's not catchy. Most importantly, ALT2 also lacks a both a presence in the article and a citation to verify it.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Georgejdorner: I have adjusted the green tick because you have struck out ALT2. ALT2 is present in the article, although spread about a bit, and those pieces are cited, although I must take your citations in good faith because they are offline. I agree that it would have been nice to see the hook repeated in the same form in the article, with its citation(s) next to it, but in my opinion, although its present form is inconvenient, it is still valid. But now that it is struck, that's the end of it. Storye book (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- My hooks are always contained in a single sentence properly cited. I am a purist about that.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- for the bot. Storye book (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Because I am a disabled combat veteran, I do not denigrate my fellow veterans, regardless of their nationality. I objected to a mundane hook, not notability. ALT2 might as well read, "Otto Jäger fought in World War I.", to which a reader's reaction is going to be, So what? A DYK hook is supposed to be "short, punchy, catchy". ALT2 fails that test; it's not catchy. Most importantly, ALT2 also lacks a both a presence in the article and a citation to verify it.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
