Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hans-Ulrich Rudel

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Hans-Ulrich Rudel edit

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Hans-Ulrich Rudel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after a peer review and thorough GA-class review it should meet the criteria. I hope that an adequate balance between his war and post war career was achieved. Please let me know how to improve that article further. Thanks for your effort. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Reading just the lede I'm already going cross-eyed. There is a tremendous amount of detail that can be easily shortened, like the names of the medals - if that really needs to be in the lede at all. Generally there seems to be a lot of words that could be removed without changing the content at all...

"Upon his request, he was transferred" - "He transferred..."
"posted to a base in France" - "posted to France."
"the German invasion of the Soviet Union" - unneeded in the lede
"He received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves" - "added the Oak Leaves" or something to that effect. This is the lede, we can expand the names fully in the body and save a lot of room here.
"awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords " - "added Swords"
"the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds" - "added Diamonds"
"He was placed in command of SG " - wasn't he already? Or do you mean in command of the entire SG?
"the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds" - again, shorten
"Together with Willem Sassen, he helped conceal the identity of Josef Mengele, a former SS doctor in the Auschwitz concentration camp, responsible for the selection of victims to be killed in the gas chambers, and ensured his security" - Together with Willem Sassen, he helped conceal and protect Josef Mengele, a former SS doctor in the Auschwitz concentration camp, responsible for the selection of victims to be killed in the gas chambers"
" In the West German federal election of 1953" - mention he returned to Germany during this period?
"Rudel joined the Luftwaffe" - separate and merge with following paragraph
"Junkers Ju 87 two-man (pilot and rear gunner) dive bomber" - the crew details seem superfluous at this point
  • Actually not because it sets the context for his rear gunners later mentioned in the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sure the article on the Ju 87 covers that, and that readers will figure it out. We don't have to mention that the sun rises in the east before saying it sets in the west in an article on California. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean but I do think it is important to mention that the Ju 87 had a crew of two. I will rephrase the sentence to "he finally learned to master the Junkers Ju 87 two-man (pilot and rear gunner) dive bomber" MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"commanded by Geschwaderkommodore (wing commander) Major" - again, a level of detail that seems unneeded. Just give the guy's name.
And had I been more active reviewing I would have objected there too. These titles add nothing to the article about Rudel. If person X has one rank vs. another it makes no difference whatsoever, yet it does greatly confuse and lengthen the wording, especially since every instance has an english translation as well.
"headed by Gruppenkommandeur (group commander) Hauptmann (captain)" - same, no one cares what his rank was at that instant in time.
Gruppe of StG 2 "Immelmann" had been placed under the control of VIII. Fliegerkorps (8th Air Corps), led by General der Flieger (General of the Aviators) Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen, subordinated to Luftflotte 2 (2nd Air Fleet) under the command of Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal) Albert Kesselring," - yikes! surely there is a better way to state this mouthful. Do we even need to know any of this? It doesn't change anything about Rudel or explain his story, and that's what this article is about. Sure, sometimes you need to include details of the wider world to better understand specifics of an article, but this strikes me as an example of superfluous details that adds nothing but complexity.
  • yes we need this since StG 2 "Immelmann" was under the control of Richthofen, subsequently Rudel fought where Richthofen sent him MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet if it was under the control of Bob Smith, subsequently Rudel fought where Bob Smith sent him. I don't see why we're interested in the chain of command, as opposed to the actual events. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" That day, he flew another aircraft to Insterburg, ... There, he was assigned to 1. Staffel" - so was this move of his part of a movement of all of the SG? Or was it, as it is worded now, something he was doing unrelated to them?
"Richthofen ordered StG 2 "Immelmann" - no need to repeat "Immelmann" with every mention of the unit, once or twice is enough.
And it is generally agreed that you state the official name of X only once in the body, and use short forms where appropriate after that. Consider HMS Hood. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"With the beginning of Operation Taifun, the Battle of Moscow, launched by Army Group Center on 30 September 1941" - "Army Group Center opened Operation Taifun, the Battle of Moscow, on 30 September 1941"
"the Honor Goblet of the Luftwaffe (Ehrenpokal der Luftwaffe), and" - do we need the german back-translation here?
  • yes, established standard in many articles gone up to FA MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is why is the German term not leading, like most other examples in this article, and every other article? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the German Cross in Gold (Deutsches Kreuz in Gold)" - or here?
  • yes, established standard in many articles gone up to FA MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"skiing on the Arlberg. Following this vacation" - this should be a para break.
His 1942 marriage to Ursula "Hanne" - so wait, he married three people all named Ursula? That's weird and definitely worth making clearer.
" Aufklärungsgeschwader 51 "Immelmann" (51st Reconnaissance Wing) of the Bundeswehr, based in Bremgarten near Freiburg, held a reunion for former members of Geschwader "Immelmann", including servicemen who served with Geschwader "Immelmann" during World War II." Hmmm. How about "Aufklärungsgeschwader 51, the latest unit to hold the name "Immelmann", held a reunion for members of the unit including those from World War II".

That's about it for now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all your concerns and remarks except those where you think the level of detail is too high. I want to wait a bit more before I address them until other reviewers have commented as well. Thanks for your effort and time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, I think there is an opportunity to reduce some of the detail to improve readability. For instance, "the destruction of 519 tanks, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer and 70 landing craft" --> "the destruction of over 500 tanks, as well as a number of ships"
  • " relief organization for Nazi war criminals that helped fugitive Nazis escape..." --> " relief organization for Nazi war criminals that helped fugitives escape"
  • " visit as being uncritical..." --> " visit as being sympathetic to..."?
  • " included Schweidnitz, present-day Świdnica, Sagan, present-day Żagań, Niesky, Görlitz and Lauban, present-day Lubań": as the links point to the current names, I don't think it is really necessary to keep saying "present-day blah". Removing this will help tighten the prose a little;
  • I am agnostic to this request. I was criticized before for only having used the former German name and not the current Polish name. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, I've tweaked the punctuation then to make the number of items in the list clearer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "World War II in Europe began when German forces invaded Poland on Friday 1 September 1939." This can probably be tightened to just: "On 1 September 1939, German forces invaded Poland."
  • " and tasked with the leadership of SG 2" --> " and given command of SG 2..."
  • That would be incorrect. Rudel was first tasked with the leadership before being officially given command of. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, I think we would say this as being given temporary command, or placed in acting command which was later confirmed/made permanent. "Tasked with leadership" doesn't work, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was experimenting with the Ju 87 G in the anti-tank role" --> "was experimenting with using the Ju 87 G in the anti-tank role"
  • "two 37 millimeters (1.5 inches) Bordkanone BK 3,7 under-wing autocannons" --> "two 37-millimeter (1.5-inch) Bordkanone BK 3,7 under-wing autocannons"
  • "Adolf Hitler shifted VIII. Fliegerkorps northwards...": might be clearer if an indicative date was added
  • "30 T-34's from..." --> "30 T-34s from..."
  • " From 7–10 January..." --> " From 7 to 10 January..."
  • "promoted to Major on 1 March 1944, with his seniority back dated to 1 October 1942...": do we know why his seniority was backdated so significantly?
  • Officially, a soldier had to hold rank for a specific timeframe in order to be eligible for the next promotion. The rank age was frequently backdated in order to fast track rank advancement. I have to assume this was the case with Rudel as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On more than 1800 missions he has destroyed..." --> In more than 1800 missions he has destroyed..."
  • "credited with the destruction of 17 tanks...": 17 in one mission, or one day? Some of these numbers are huge. Obviously have to go with the sources on this one, but has anyone questioned the validity of some of these claims? Having started as a relatively mediocre pilot, he seems to have amassed an incredible score.
  • The entire sentence reads "The next day, during the prelude of the First Jassy–Kishinev Offensive (8 April – 6 June 1944), he was credited with the destruction of 17 tanks at Fălești, 40 kilometers (25 mi) north of Iași." So, it means on one day. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, thanks for clarifying. I've tweaked the article a little to hopefully make this clearer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rudel did suffer a stroke on 26 April 1970." --> This appears to be out of chronological order, and is a bit awkwardly worded.
  • "Responsible for the authorization of this event was Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry of Defence, Hermann Schmidt." --> " The Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry of Defence, Hermann Schmidt authorized the event".
  • "so-called": should be avoided per the guidance in WP:ALLEGED
  • Anyway, that's it from me, I only had a superficial look at the post war period, but will try to come back later. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "helped Rudel find a job, which he did not accept" --> "helped Rudel look for work. He was offered a job as a [INSERT APPROPRIATE DESCRIPTION], but he did not accept the position."
  • reworded, it remains vague as the exact details of the job are not mentioned. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the paragraph beginning: "Rudel was married three times. His 1942 marriage to..." --? this seems a little out of place where it is. I suggest potentially just moving it to a "Personal life" sub-section as chronologically it seems to interrupt the flow of the Later life section (I think it would probably work best just before the "Death and funeral subsection"
  • some of the reference titles have translations and some don't. For instance "WM-Anekdoten: Ein Jahrhundertspiel und ein..." doesn't, but "Ein Besuch bei alten Kameraden — Der Nazi Rudel kam 1978" [A Visit to old Comrades — The Nazi Rudel came in 1978]" does. I think this should be consistent.
  • the formatting of the works in the "Publications" section is inconsistent
  • "File:Operation Barbarossa corrected border.png": the source of the original map (please see here) probably needs to be added to the description page of this one, otherwise it is difficult to assert it is the work of a US government employee. Additionally, for some reason this says US Air Force, but the original map says US Army employee.
Tidied a couple of sections with illogical use of alleged war criminals and war criminals, altered citations to L→R as per WP:something or other. Keith-264 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead
German Luftwaffe seems redundant as phrased. I know you mean he was a German in the Luftwaffe, but.
"all over the Eastern Front" I'd rephrase to avoid the alternate meaning of every place on the Eastern Front.
Matter of taste, but it seems that the changes to shorten the references to the awards of various levels of the Knight's Cross have gone to far, and it's no longer clear what all those diamonds, swords and oak leaves mean. Also the multiple links to the same article violate WP:OVERLINK. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding Maury's comments, I think it depends in part on whether you want to take this to FAC. Because FAs can be long and people put a lot of work into them, people sometimes get the wrong impression that proper FAC style is to include every detail, regardless of relevance. But one of the uses of FAs is to make a good impression on a broad range of readers as the first item each day on the Main Page. Seen from that angle, every one of Maury's suggestions above looks like an improvement on the current text to me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct most of his suggestions have been worked into the article. I believe two comments so far have not been addressed yet, and I am not convinced yet that they need to be. The first, German leading or English term leading, and the second, detail of command. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel&oldid=724483690"