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

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
  • 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


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


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


More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 20 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


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


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
  • Lieth-Thomsen is again in full and duplicate linked, should just be Lieth-Thomsen
  • "Imperial German Air Service" is this the "Luftstreitkrafte"?
  • italicise Dicta
  • fighter aircraft
  • suggest "became one of the premier German..."
  • suggest "Four World War II generals"
  • suggest Third Reich→Nazi Germany
  • 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
  • there is no use of the Richthofen and Barker work, which needs an oclc or issn if it being used
  • 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

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"