Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Werner Voss/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Werner Voss edit

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I want it to undergo a going-over before submitting it for Featured Article Review. As the previous passive Peer Review just completed rendered no constructive feedback, I intend to go proactive and invite known expert editors to participate this time.

My special concern is the Last Stand section. I may have become too detailed there, and would appreciate feedback.

Thanks, Georgejdorner (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use of abbreviations: You used KG 4 to denote Kampfgeschwader IV or FEA 7 for Fliegerersatz-Abteilung 7. It is better to introduce the abbreviations such as Kampfgeschwader IV (KG 4—4th Tactical Bomber Wing) or Fliegerersatz-Abteilung 7 (FEA 7—Training Detachment 7). This way the readers have a better understanding what the abbreviation refers to.
  • I am a bit confused by this comment. I currently introduce these two terms, complete with bracketed English translation, before abbreviation is used. Is your objection to the form of my introductions? Or simply to my usage of the abbreviations? Please clarify.
  • Sorry, what I mean is in the article it states "Kampfgeschwader (Tactical Bomber Wing) IV", I believe it is good practice that the reader understands that the abbreviation KG 4 refers to Kampfgeschwader IV. Therefore it is better to write Kampfgeschwader IV (KG 4—4th Tactical Bomber Wing). Now the reader knows that KG 4 is linked to Kampfgeschwader IV.

MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't say I have ever seen your format in use. Generally, after the first full iteration of the unit name, the reader is deemed mindful enough to pick up the abbreviation. However, I have standardized the unit names and eliminated any abbreviations, which should answer.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Staffelführer to Staffelkapitän. It currently links to the SS rank which is not correct.
  • As the Staffelführer article clearly states in its second sentence, the SS rank was copied from previous World War I usage. The rank of Staffelkapitan did not exist during World War I.
  • Düsseldorf not Dusseldorf
  • Corrected.
  • "His leave chit also cleared him for ..." Sorry but what is a chit?
  • More formal term "authorization" subbed for informal "chit".
  • Please carry on, Mister Bee.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some more ideas by Halibutt:
  • the List of aerial victories section lists dates and times of each major engagement, which is fine. However, it cites time of each engagement in the "American army" way (1320 hrs), while per WP:TIME a better format is 13:20. Throughout the article both systems are used.
    • Sharp eyes! I have converted all times in victory list to civilian usage; also, such times as I could find in text. Please point out any others.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drawn towards patriotic service" - I'd rather reword that. Why not military service?
    • Because he acted as a civilian volunteer driver as well as a militia member.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he joined the Krefeld Militia" - what unit was that? Was it a Freikorps? Just asking out of curiosity, it doesn't really have to be clarified.
  • "he finished his schooling at Krefeld's Moltke Gymnasium" - I believe de:Gymnasium am Moltkeplatz deserves its' own article (and link) rather than a link to Gymnasium (Germany). If not, why not link the word "Gymnasium" alone?
    • Gymnasium is a disambiguation page. If some other editor should care to write an English language article about the school, I would link.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disregarding conscription laws, underaged Werner Voss joined Ersatz Eskadron 2" - this Ersatz Eskadron 2 (2nd Reserve Squadron) was part of a pretty notable unit. There were hundreds of Reserve Squadrons in 1914, but only one 11th Hussar Regiment (Germany) (de:2. Westfälisches Husaren-Regiment Nr. 11), why not link it?
  • "Voss enthusiastically recommended the Fokker's adoption while never progressing to testing the Pfalz Dr.I." - unclear. Was he tasked with testing both planes?
    • The source is not specific as to which aircraft he was tasked to test. However, given that he was there to test fly aircraft, it is probable he was assigned to test at least all new fighters, if not heavier craft.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an "out of control" victory? The term is used at least twice in the text, but it's not explained.
    • I have linked first usage. I also added a See also just under Aerial combat header.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the article imperial units are being used, even if the pilot was German and Germany uses metric system. Per WP:UNIT the "main" quantity (in this case metres) should be followed by a conversion in parentheses (in this case feet).
    • Corrected. Conversions are approximate, but then so were the estimates of height that were reported.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he turned to help what he believed to be a Nieuport threatened by German Albatri" - why Albatri and not, say, Albatrosses?
    • In German, "Albatros" is spelled with one "s". British Commonwealth pilots, being grounded in Latin, latinicized the plural to "Albatri" to avoid the awkwardness of "Albatrosses". Because of that, "Albatri" is generally used in the source texts for World War I aviation.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that - great article, it was a pleasure to read.
  • "when German aces fattened their victory lists on the disproportionate British losses" seems a bit opaque, how about "when German fighter pilots shot down the largest number of British aircraft in a month, since the war began."?Keith-264 (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that I wrote a problematic sentence there. However, the suggested change also has at least one major problem–German observers and bomber pilots also shot down British aircraft. Also, the change is itself rather opague, as it was not a case of a great number of British losses occurring as it was a high percentage of personnel involved becoming casualties. So, yes, a better sentence is needed. But what?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wrote it out of existence when I wrote the new lead.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments by MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From cavalry to the clouds - mentioned he passed out of officer training but later says he was promoted to an senior NCO, this implies he was not an officer at the point.
    • And indeed he was not yet. I added an explanatory note to his commissioning date, in the next Aerial combat section.Georgejdorner (talk)
    • On second thought, added explanation that officer candidates progressed through the noncommissioned ranks before becoming officers.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aerial combat He received his pilot's badge on 28 May 1916 but he had already passed flying school and become an instructor?
    • Added a note that pilot's badge was not awarded until actual combat patrols were flown.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aerial combat - suddenly introduces 'Jasta Boelcke without making it clear it is the same as Jagdstaffel2 mentioned earlier.
  • Aerial combat - The friendship would continue even after Voss's death doesnt make sense and is followed by with Richthofen scheduled to spend leave at the Voss hunting lodge at the time of the Red Baron's last flight its not clear but does this imply he didnt make it perhaps needs a tweak to make sense.
    • You are indeed correct that this garble needs correction, and not least because it is too early in chronology. I deleted it, only to add Richthofen's use of the Voss family hunting lodge in the Last Stand section.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program edit

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 900 meters, use 900 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 900&nbsp;meters.[?]
  • Mended.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
    • Devolved the victory list into an ancillary list a la Richthofen. Parent article size reduced by 15,310 bytes, about one-fourth.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), moustache (B) (American: mustache), meter (A) (British: metre), ization (A) (British: isation), counterattack (A) (British: counter-attack), gray (A) (British: grey), grey (B) (American: gray), molt (A) (British: moult).
    • Article written in American usage. Nominator is unaware of any British usage outside of quotations.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. -(t) Josve05a (c) 03:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Just re-read this down to Voss in command; the prose is really good.
  • "Voss had scored 24 victories and awarded": ... been awarded
  • I agree with the commenter above that "Albatri" wouldn't be my choice; people following your link will search for that word in vain, and if they don't know Latin or WWI banter, they may be confused. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Werner_Voss/archive2&oldid=1094923612"