Wikipedia

Talk:Oswald Boelcke/GA1

< Talk:Oswald Boelcke
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Peacemaker67 in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago120 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 12:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply


I'll take a look at this over the next few days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • My apologies for the slow start, but I just retrieved my computer from its two day sojourn in repair.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

A few comments/queries:

  • I’m not familiar with the German use of postnominals ie PLM, so unless you can point to that being standard practice in the German Empire, I'd remove it. Also, given this was the highest award, it goes to his notability and should probably be explicitly mentioned early in the lead?
    • Dunno how I could place his Blue Max any earlier, unless I move it in front of his birth/death dates. And I am puzzled by your comment about German use of postnominals. In this English WP, VC and MoH are used in the opening sentence to establish notability. The Pour le Merite is equivalent to those honors.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • I would mention it in full and link it in the first sentence, along the lines of "...years of air combat, and was a recipient of the Pour le Merite, Germany's most prestigious award." What I am saying is that I am not aware of a convention for Germans who received high awards using postnominals. The Commonwealth does have such conventions (the US does not, except branch ones like USMC), and I don't believe they were a "thing" in the German Empire. So, you shouldn't use postnominals unless there was a convention to do so. It is not a question of equivalence, of course they are essentially equivalent, it is about whether postnominals were a German convention. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • That's a bit of arcanery of which I was unaware. I did look about unsuccessfully for a WP consensus before giving it my best shot...which has now been rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • The Interests etc section, some of the things relate to things we learn later and would better inserted into the career narrative. This section also has too many short paras. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this section interrupts the flow of the article, and all the material should be moved elsewhere.
    • I inherited this section from a prior editor. I gave it quite a bit of thought before retaining it. Like you, I did not appreciate the interruption of the the article's chronology. On the other hand, it was a catchment of minor facts that cannot be gracefully worked into the chronological narrative, but do give insight into his personality. I submitted it as part of this nom with the aim of either verifying its worth or deleting it as trivial. I will have to agree with you that it should be moved. I believe its removal will leave a colder and less nuanced portrayal, but away it goes.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • I wouldn't have deleted it, just integrated the various material into other sections, as I believe most of it is appropriate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply


More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • the lead mentions and links the Dicta Boelcke twice, only needs to be mentioned once
  • there are quite a lot of duplicate links, suggest installing the script at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to your common.js page to identify these and unlink the second and subsequent links


More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • all the notes need citations
    • I have been unable to discover a workable cite system for notes. If you have one to share, I would be most appreciative.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • All you have to do it put the sfnp citation template inside the efn template at the end of the actual note text. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • I fiddled with it until it works. Many thanks.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • Eliminate first note. Although it is common knowledge that the Olympics aren't held during wartime, I have been unable to find a cite to verify that. I guess it's better to puzzle the reader by following WP rules.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • Hated to kill footnote about his fan mail, but I could not relocate the source(s). Footnotes are done, though cite for footnote c is nonstandard.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • in the lead, suggest "single combat" rather than "single effort"
  • German Imperial Army seems a strange order to me, perhaps Imperial German Army?
  • The Early years section has short paras that could be combined to improve the flow of the text
    • Combined first two paras. New first para's theme is the Boelcke family. Second para, Oswald's preschool years. Third, how his family background affected his schooling. Fourth, his choice of military career. I am careful to denote these since there seems to be a general belief in WP that if a sufficient number of random sentences are jammed together to make a satisfying looking block of text on the screen, they are a paragraph.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply


More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Need to implement MOS:SURNAME, as several times the first names continue to be used after introduction
    • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • Restored Manfred von Richthofen's first name in one instance as a precaution against confusion with Lothar or one of the other fighter pilots named Richthofen.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Dicta Boelcke and Dicta should be italicised per MOS:ITAL as it is a written work, likewise Richthofen Dicta
  • "It is still taught as part of a fighter pilot's training curriculum." isn't mentioned or cited in the body. In which air forces?
    • USN and USAF use it to train U.S. and German pilots. And I have to locate the para explaining that. I had it in draft space...wha' hoppen?Georgejdorner (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • Okay, cut this temporarily. There's just too much other stuff to deal with.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • Found and inserted missing para. Added sentence back to lead.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • in the lead, "tapped" is colloquial, suggest "selected"
  • suggest "would become generals in World War II"
  • suggest "he was killed in a crash after a midair collision"
  • the awards in the infobox are a bit over the top, suggest trimming to the truly notable ones, like the Pour le Mérite, Knight’s Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern with Swords and Knight's Cross of the Order of Albert the Bear, perhaps one other, but campaign medals and lower level orders should not be listed there
    • All but one of these awards for military prowess--recognition of his courageous service. The exception was the Lifesaving Award.
    • I did not list observer wings, pilot certification, nor the (non-official) first victory cup. And to the best of my knowledge, the German military did not issue campaign ribbons. But don't quote me on that.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • The Gallipoli Star and Turkish War Medal are campaign medals. You are also including lower classes of awards which are superseded by higher levels, when you only need the highest of each. The medals should probably be ordered from highest to lowest as well. Template:Orders, decorations, and medals of the German Empire gives guidance on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • Campaign medals deleted from info box and Honors and Awards. Orders, medals, et cetera are ranked high to low to best of my ability.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
          • Trimmed 8 lower order decorations from info box; all decorations are shown in Awards and Honors section.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
          • I might add that the German Empire had a different ethos towards valor awards than Americans or Brits. The latter nations award medals for exceptional acts of courage; the guttier the act, the higher the award, and a lower award can follow a higher. In contrast, Germany viewed awards as sequential rewards for prolonged performance. A hero would win, in order, both classes of Iron Cross before the Hoho, then finaly rising to the Blue Max. These four awards formed a ladder of honor, although sundry other awards often also accrued.18:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Early years section, mention that Giebichenstein was in the Kingdom of Saxony
  • not sure that translating Telegraphen-Bataillon Nr. 3 from German really adds to the article, it is obvious
    • Also my thought when I added this to follow consensus. Remedied.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Kriegsschule is more correctly translated as War School
  • The use of ensign is inconsistent with the other rank usage, Fähnrich is the German rank of the time
  • "to catch some flights" is colloquial, suggest "and was a passenger on several flights"
  • 3rd Air Battalion? Elsewhere the German unit names are used, perhaps it would be best to be consistent?
    • Given in source. The names of German aviation units changed several times during the war. Call them consistently inconsistent.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply


More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • link pentathlon
  • there are several examples of using the future tense of would that are inelegant prose, eg "would fly the first" Why not "flew the first"
    • Rewrote example noted. Could you please point out any other infelicities of the sort?17:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
      • "his father would move the family", "The resulting furor would influence", "German propagandists would take", "The restriction would soon be eroded", "He would demonstrate it", "Boelcke would not return to flight status", "would remain one of Germany's premier fighter squadrons". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • Kept two instances referring to the start of an ongoing situation, but rewrote them to clarify this. Rendered others past tense, except, "He would demonstrate it", which I could not find. There are only so many times you can the entire text searching for a phrase before it all begins to mush together in one's brain.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • suggest "onconducting reconnaissance"
    • Changed.16:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest "French aircraft" instead of "their aircraft"
  • suggest "enemy-held ground"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • what type were the French pusher aircraft?
  • two uses of separate in the same sentence, suggest just "...separate the brothers."
  • suggest "circumvented the chain of command"
    • "Circumvented" implies they avoided the chain of command altogether instead of skipping a link in it.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Douai is linked twice in consecutive sentences
  • "they caught the public eye" and "they caught the public fancy" is repetitive, suggest condensing
  • suggest clarifying that the gun was fuselage-mounted
  • suggest "To engage enemy aircraft, a Fokker pilot had only to point his aircraft at them."
  • link Anthony Fokker
  • link Eugène Gilbert
  • suggest "Pigeons Department Metz"
  • suggest "the first German pilot to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern with Swords."
    • I don't see the merit to this suggestion.00:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Revisited this. Rereading source I find it does not say he was first to win the Hoho; rather he won it when he was the first to score six victories. There remains the possibility that some other flier won it beforehand for some other feat. So I pruned this down.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • when mentioning the Lifesaving Medal, perhaps re-insert the material about him being in his dress uniform that was deleted
    • Sure. Nothing a little slapstick to undercut the heroism. Recall my remark about graceful inclusion?Georgejdorner (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • suggest Leutnant instead of lieutenant, and you don't need the link as it is already linked above
    • Due to the obvious congruence of "leutnant" and "lieutenant", I have chosen to use the English term.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply


More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • link Jametz
  • who was the "the chief of air services"? Was this Leith-Thomsen? If so, name him here rather than later.
  • the use of Überkanone without explanation and with a link to a section of the Flying ace article (which is already linked above) isn't helpful. Some sort of explanation that ten victories was the German standard of the time would be useful here.
  • perhaps replace "win" with "victory"?
  • 21 May 1918 should be 1916
  • link Hauptmann
    • Link unneeded. The rank is defined in following sentence.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • suggest "the youngest officer of that rank in the German military"
    • As written, it reflects the singular honor granted. Your suggested edit diminishes that distinction.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • I think the Dicta is important enough to summarise the eight maxims in this article. It doesn't have to be verbatim, but just an overall summary of the main themes.
    • This omission is major enough you should have failed the nom. I can't believe I missed this! But no more. They are there now.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • "The Oopposing German force"


More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Lieth-Thomsen is duplicate linked, and should just be his surnames at this point
  • FFA? This hasn't been introduced.
  • suggest "By 8 September"
  • it mentions Halberstadts, were they just brought from the original units or what?
  • Dictum Eight I think
  • Now 'Dictum 8' to conform with Dicta Boelcke article.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • "packed" is colloquial, suggest "mounted"
  • "to impress on his pilots"
  • "Nevertheless, the squadron" Why Nevertheless? It isn't apparent they were not following his orders
  • Luftsteitkrafte has a typo
  • italicise Dicta Boelcke
  • "The train crept away to a mourning nation" seems overly dramatic
    • Closely follows source. Crowds lined the rail line night or day for Boelcke just as Americans did for Lincoln's funeral cortege.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Lieth-Thomsen is again in full and duplicate linked, should just be Lieth-Thomsen
  • "Imperial German Air Service" is this the "Luftstreitkrafte"?
    • Alternative name in Wikipedia-land. Blanket term covering both Fliegertruppes and "Luftstreitkrafte".Georgejdorner (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • italicise Dicta
  • fighter aircraft
  • suggest "became one of the premier German..."
  • suggest "Four World War II generals"
  • suggest Third Reich→Nazi Germany
    • The citizenry of Nazi Germany were not involved in this. The officials of the Third Reich were.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • It isn't apparent what the citations are for his awards. Are they all cited to [105]? I suggest an initial sentence along the lines of "Boelcke received many decorations and honours during World War I, these included:[citation]" then bold the headings using a preceding ; Also you need to break out the other kingdoms and duchies like you have with Bavaria, at present they seem to be part of Bavaria
    • I've dealt with this. Cites are in conformity with WP standards.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • Not really. There are a number of types of awards, the "Other German awards" part needs to have indented heading below it for each German kingdom/duchy etc, also some have a colon, some do not, but a fair reading of it is that the only citation is for the Order of Bravery, 3rd class, whereas you obviously intend for the whole section to be cited to fn 110. That is why I suggested an initial sentence. It simplifies the whole matter and avoids confusion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • it isn't clear why Mulzer is in See also. Perhaps it would be better to link the list of German aces?
  • the use of emdashes in the Bibliography is non-standard
    • Rewrote those listings to eliminate template causing m-dashes. (Not my template. Someone changed my cite style to this template. I loathe it because it is miserably difficult to work in.)Georgejdorner (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • there is no use of the Richthofen and Barker work, which needs an oclc or issn if it being used
    • Supplied ISBN. And I do believe it contains the Richthofen Dicta. Later I will pull a comparison check between cites and biblio, and move this to Further reading if it is not used in a cite.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • File:Aviatik B.I.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • There is a disconnect between the citations and the Bibliography regarding: Franks and Bailey; Franks, Bailey and Guest; and VanWyngarden 2007 and 2016. This is created because you are using a mix of plain text and the cite book template. Suggest converting all references to cite book, and a ref=harv field will link the cites and the references. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • So you wish to bring back the m-dash problem? Because I changed some of the template cites back to the original plain text cites to get rid of the m-dashes you dubbed superfluous. And by WP consensus, the original editor to write cites in an article sets the cite style, and other editors are supposed to follow it. I began the cites for this article in plain text, and by custom, that is where they should have remained.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • BTW, if you install importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); on your common.js page, it will automatically identify such issues. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • BTW, if during the past ten years, someone had told me what computer language these scripts are written in, I would at least have an idea of what I have to learn. As it is, I am ignorant of my ignorance.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • I don't wish to make you do anything except be consistent within an article with the citations and bibliography. You are using shortened footnotes, which, as mentioned at Template:Sfnp#How to use it, automatically link to the cite book template if you use the ref=harv field, so I'm suggesting you do that so they all link. There is no GA criteria requirement that you do so, it is just a suggestion to avoid anyone bringing it up in future should you wish to take the article to Milhist A-Class review or make it a Featured Article candidate, which I encourage you to do once it is promoted to GA. So far as the scripts are involved, you don't need to know any computer language to do it. Just create a page called User:Georgejdorner/common.js, and paste the script 
          importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
          and save it. From then on, every time you view a page, any Harv errors (disconnects between the citations and the bibliography) will be shown. See User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for a demo of what it looks like. The issue with the year that was 20001 that MB identified below is picked up by this script, because it identifies if a citation doesn't match the cite book template, and vice versa. The other script I mentioned earlier 
          importScript('User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js'); // [[User:Evad37/duplinks-alt]]
          creates a link in the toolbox on the left hand side of any article page which highlights duplicate links by outlining them in red. It is further explained at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. It means you don't have to search through manually for them with your Mark 1 eyeball and thereby miss some. It just makes things easier and quicker, which is what all of these scripts do. There is no requirement to do this, it is just a suggestion to save you time in future. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
          • Because I have never received the least help in learning wikicode or scripts, I picked up such wikicode as I know through "monkey see monkey do". That includes the sfnp cite, which I didn't realize was connected to script, but picke dup for ease of use. As for script, no one (including you) has ever even identified it to me. However, I have been badgered about using it for the past ten years. I have even had another editor delete an attempt at experimenting with script. Enough! I'll return to plain text cites if I must.
          • If I had rewritten this article from the ground up instead of editing others' work, I would have no need for the Mark I eyeball search for other writers' errors. I am going to return to that practice.
          • Having previously wrangled over coding during Class A and FA nominations, I am disinclined to ever again submit any article to these nomination processes. Nitpicking over coding, proper dashes, the placement of a colon in a book title, and such lend nothing to the readability of an article. Since these proceses do increase my stress level, and I am retired on a stress-related illness, it behooves me to conserve myself.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply


That's me done. Good work so far, a fair few things to tidy up, so placing on hold. Ping me when you're done? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick note. The material regarding the concentration camp is relevant to Boelcke's legacy, as his name has been associated with it, and it should be included, along with the links to the two articles. I don't think its inclusion is undue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • To quote Head: "He [meaning Boelcke] is one of the few German heroes of the Great War who was not tainted by later association with Naziism..." Which seems a fair summary, given the absurdity that Boelcke died before the Nazi party was even founded.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • OK, I'm done. I tweaked a few things I think you couldn't find. Feel free to revert them if they don't suit. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Comments by MisterBee1966
  • I tried fixing most of the citation errors. I could not resolve
  • Franks & 20001
  • Kilduff (2016), pp. 175–176, no book of that title listed
  • Shaara (2004), entirety, no book of that title listed
  • Two books not used in the article, I moved them to "further reading"
  • "Find a Grave" may not be a reliable source??
  • Check MOS:BADHEAD some of your headers are not allowed
    • Checked headers against MOS:BADHEAD. I don't spot the problem. They are properly sequential.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

G'day MisterBee1966 can you explain what you meant in regards to MOS:BADHEAD? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Request for comment: Boelcke's legacy edit

RfC moved to Talk:Oswald Boelcke#Request for comment: Boelcke's legacy.

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oswald_Boelcke/GA1&oldid=877403265"