Talk:Erwin Böhme

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Tried to set all ratings to B Class now that the article has been re-assessed. No luck with resetting Wikiproject Germany.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Total rewrite performed.

100% cited from textual sources owned by editor.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Another rewrite

Additional texts acquired. Rewritten, with illustrations added.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The article did not actually receive a 5x expansion; the article may be re-nominated for DYK if it is improved to GA status.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that flying ace Erwin Böhme was haunted for life by his killing his best friend? Source: Franks, Giblin, p. 17: "It had been a complete accident but the memory of his friend and leader falling was to haunt him for the rest of his life."
  • Reviewed: James F. Kelley
  • Comment: One of the many misfortunes of warfare is that you may kill your friend, as well as your enemy.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 00:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC).

• alt1... that Germany's leading flying ace was accidentally killed by his best friend Erwin Böhme?
  • alt2 ... that Erwin Böhme came under the command of Germany's Red Baron after he had accidentally killed another of Germany's leading flying aces?

• Its a fine article with lots of refs. Its tone isnt always encyclopedic and can read like a novel description of a hero. Is it possible to rephrase the hook to lose "rest of his life"? Two issues: a) one was that the "rest of his life" was a very short affair and b) we have no evidence that he was haunted apart from one commentator saying (guessing?) he was. Surely the fact that he killed his best friend is hooky enough? - we too can guess that he felt bad about it. I have suggested two alts but happy to see them rephrased. Victuallers (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to withdraw the true statement that Erwin Böhme regretted his friend's death until his own death. I can supply several more sources to that effect, so Erwin Böhme's regret was widely known. ALT1 removes the mystery from my proposed hook, to leave a bland and less-hooky version that will draw fewer page views. ALT2 is not strictly true. Richthofen flew with Boelcke and Böhme before and during the accident that killed Boelcke, as well as afterwards.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no doubt that he regretted it. That wasnt my point. There is quite a bit of literary license in the article to my eyes which I guess may come from sources. Alt0 "his killing his friend" could be more fluent. I have amended alt2 but I think another reviewer may find it easier, so I will step back from this review if you would like. Victuallers (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. I am being over-finicky. Your hooks are valid, though lacking mystery. I'll leave the choice of hook to the DYK volunteer.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, ALT2 isn't half bad. It would certainly do.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Although I think this article is fascinating, and the hook would certainly kill it (ahem), I can't see how this can go to DYK. The article was 19k long in January 2021 when the nom started expanding it, and although their efforts have certainly improved the article greatly, it has expanded by only slightly more than 50% since that time. This simply isn't "new" by any stretch, and looking over the edit history I can't see any argument for a "bye". Georgejdorner, am I missing something here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

On 2 June 2022, I imported a fresh version of this article from workspace to qualify it as a new article. Article size has nothing to do with this nomination.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: Assuming you mean this edit, the article remains substantially similar to the version from February 2022, and that version is fairly similar to the version from January 2021. I see additions, new images, and some additional paragraphs, along with lots of cleanup. I don't see a new article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Georgejdorner, the fact is that the article existed prior to you overwriting it with a "fresh" version from your workspace; DYK does not consider the resulting article to be new, but to be an expansion, and this is impossibly far from a fivefold expansion. Per WP:DYKSG#A4, Fivefold expansion is calculated from the last version of the article before the expansion began, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. Your only hope for this to qualify for DYK at this point is for it to become a Good Article, at which point you would need to nominate it within seven days of passage. I'm sorry, but rewriting an article does not make it new. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The victory list, which is the largest section in the article, was added in its entirety during the rewrite. I researched and added most of the illustrations during the rewrite. I made a thorough check of the citations, changing some to more reliable sources. In the process, I found much of the text to be a true statement of the facts, and did not rewrite it simply to put it in different words meaning the same. There was a lot more effort expended than shows on the screen.

I do not believe an unneeded restatement of valid text was indicated because no changes were needed. I believe this is a valid nomination under Eligibility criteria 1c, but am willing to let the DYK volunteers decide. No hard feelings here, whatever.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If this nom has been denied, how about removing it from this listing?Georgejdorner (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Missing reference

@Georgejdorner: The first paragraph in the "Death in action" section is cited to Jackson (1998), pp. 26–27. However, no such book is listed in the article. Could it be that the reference should be the book by "Jackson, Robert (2006). Army Wings: A History of Army Air Observation Flying 1914–1960. Pen & Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-84415-380-0"? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)