 | Wolfram von Richthofen was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 25, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wolfram von Richthofen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 120 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Section on Guernica edit
Perhaps this is just me but it seems a little...partisan, I suppose? Does it in its current state fit within Wikipedia's guidelines or is something amiss? Not accusing anyone, but it seems especially crafted to make Guernica seem like "no big deal" by only citing one, very conservative, figure of the casualties and over-all it strikes me as having a specific prerogative on the part of the author.
A date edit
- Appears in the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Band XIX (1996), s. 230. WIth these dates. - Nunh-huh 21:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Changes recently edit
The lead does not repeat itself. The reputation part has not been completed yet. Dapi89 (talk)•