Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Helmut Wick/archive1

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment‎ | Helmut Wick
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 08:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Wick edit

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would enjoy improving the article further. Thanks in advance MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Forgive a brief wave of nostalgia but I first came across the name Helmut Wick when, as a boy, I assembled an Airfix model in the livery of his Bf 109, so it's good to finally see a decent article on him in WP.

  • Prose -- Performed a pretty extensive copyedit so please let me know if I've unintentionally altered any meaning. In addition to that:
    • FYI, in Commonwealth bios the convention is to only open with the subject's rank when it's 1-star and above. However if it's the convention in German bios to start with their rank no matter what, then that's cool.
    • You italicise Luftwaffe in the infobox but not elsewhere. Since it's such a well-known term I'm not that fussed if it's italicised or not but you should decide which it will be and make it consistrent throughout the article.
    • He was also awarded the Iron Cross 1st Class ([Eisernes Kreuz 1. Klasse] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) by Oberstleutnant Harry von Bülow-Bothkamp. -- Why "also"? In addition to what? Actually better we drop the "also" and record the date it was awarded (6 June, I believe) and, if possible, exactly what it was awarded for (perhaps an except from the citation, if available).
    • Although the fighting in the air grew increasingly difficult, Wick kept adding victories to his tally. -- Can you elaborate briefly on why it was more difficult? Was this when the RAF changed to its 'big wing' tactics, or when the Luftwaffe's focus shifted to blitzing cities instead of attacking airfields, or what?
    • He was also interviewed by an Adler (Eagle—the Luftwaffe weekly magazine) journalist prior to the presentation. Several articles appeared at the time. -- Several articles on what? Wick, or other German aces?
    • Upon his return to France. Wick was promoted to Hauptmann (captain) and on 9 September was officially named Gruppenkommandeur (group commander) of I. Gruppe JG 2. -- Why "officially named"? Was he unofficially doing the job before? If not simply drop "officially".
    • The last few sentences re. his death currently read:

Only later did Pflanz find out that it was Wick he saw bailing out. Wick was never found, however, and the Luftwaffe declared him missing in action, presumed dead, on 4 December 1940, earning him his last reference in the daily Wehrmachtbericht.

Göring had ordered Kriegsmarine torpedo boats on a night-long search-and-rescue mission for Wick. The next day, other naval vessels and the Seenotdienst (air-sea rescue) service, escorted by fighters of JG 2, continued in vain to search for him. Helmut Wick, on his 168th combat mission, was the first Oak Leaves recipient to lose his life in combat.

I'd suggest we make this one para instead of two, and juggle things so the info is presented more-or-less chronologically (haven't done this myself because I'm unsure of the best way to rearrange the citations) -- note that I've tweaked a few words as well as the sequencing:

Only later did Pflanz find out that it was Wick he saw bailing out. Göring ordered Kriegsmarine torpedo boats on a night-long search-and-rescue mission for the downed ace. The next day, other naval vessels and the Seenotdienst (air-sea rescue) service, escorted by fighters of JG 2, continued to search for him. He was never found, however, and the Luftwaffe declared him missing in action, presumed dead, on 4 December 1940, leading to his last reference in the daily Wehrmachtbericht. Wick, on his 168th combat mission, was the first Oak Leaves recipient to lose his life in combat.

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • General comment, in English we tend to only capitalise ranks when they're used as a title immediately in front of a person's name, e.g. we'd say "Major Jones" (capitalised) but "Jones was promoted to major" (not capitalised). Is the convention in German to capitalise no matter what?
      • In German, military ranks are always capitalised. In Denglish (we Germans refer to the language mix of Deutsch and English as Denglish) I have seen things like hauptmann, oberst, etc. but it hurts my eyes. If we have a guideline a gladly obey to this MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure/detail -- These look okay to me.
  • Referencing/spotchecks
    • You don't cite his nickname of "Sigfried". Best to mention and cite it in the main body of the article if possible (i.e. when he acquired it and why) but at the very least it needs citation here.
      • done I removed it, I can't recall how it ended up in the article MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hagen appears in bibliography but don't see him cited anywhere.
    • With no online sources and no access to the books in question, I haven't performed any spotchecks.
  • Supporting materials
    • Image licensing checks out.
    • The caption for File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1968-015-19, Helmut Wick.jpg says 22 October 1940 but the date in the image file says September 1940. Can we rationalise the discrepancy 'cos it appears the infobox image was from the same photo session and I used the date of September to augment the infobox image caption...
      • Ringlstetter uses the same picture in his book on page 83. The caption below the picture in his book reads "Prior to leaving to receive the Oak Leaves..." This was on 6 October. I fixed the date in the caption. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, have checked all that and copyedited a bit -- further comments:
    • I'd still like to see some brief elaboration on how the BofB fighting became more difficult, but won't hold up support because of that.
    • I'm not sure the recent addition re. the family and air group vacations adds much. It seems out of place where it is since you have a Family section at the end, but on the other hand it's such a specific item it doesn't really work in that section either. My preference would be to drop that whole bit.
    • Obviously I'm taking in good faith (and based on prior experience have absolutely no reason not to) the accuracy of the article vs. the information in the sources, i.e. per earlier comment I've done no spotchecking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on Citation & Sourcing Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The newspapers articles in Further Reading need to be brought into style.
      • done I took the book by Walter Zuerl out of the list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bibliography: Published where? Williamson, Gordon and Bujeiro, Ramiro (2004)
    • Bibliography: München: a publishing city of note not requiring a nation's name, or not? cf: Die Wehrmachtberichte 1939–1945 Band 1, 1. September 1939 bis 31. Dezember 1941. versus Helden der Wehrmacht — Unsterbliche deutsche Soldaten.
      • Let's keep it uniform and keep the city name, Germany sequence for all German based references. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may find at FAC that the website "World War 2 Awards" is not considered High Quality. Whether this deeply impacts a FAC depends on the reviewer's opinions there. I do note, however, that while "World War 2 Awards" is a wiki—it is not an open wiki, it edits and reviews all potential submissions, keeping the editorial control of what actually appears in the hands of the editors. Thus it is a trustworthy wiki, dependent upon the quality of the editors &tc. Good choice there. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: generally looks fine. I have a couple of minor comments, though, that probably should be addressed prior to taking to FAC:
    • in the lead this could possibly be tighter: "By then he had been credited with 56 aerial victories—that is, 56 aerial combat encounters resulting in the destruction of the enemy aircraft, making..." Perhaps try: "By then he had been credited with destroying 56 enemy aircraft in aerial combat, making..."
    • there is slight mix of English variation: e.g. "defense" (US) v. "Labour", "recognise", "honour" etc. (British);
    • there is a sentence fragment here: "Upon his return to France. Wick was promoted to..." I suggest tweaking it by simply removing the full stop: "Upon his return to France Wick was promoted to..." AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't Jagdgeschwader be italicized?
  • Was he in temporary command before this: was officially named Gruppenkommandeur? If not then delete the "officially".
    • Thanks for picking this up, Storm, I'd raised this myself earlier and hadn't noticed that it wasn't actioned when I subsequently checked through acknowledgements to my comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much use of this: Jagdgeschwader 2 "Richthofen" Use the abbreviation that you've already introduced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question User Mememe2222 on commons has added a number of pictures to commons claiming that they are family possession. Her/his additions to the German Wiki indicate that my assumption (family member) is valid. I would like to use these images here on the English article as well. Could someone please let me know if the rational applied allows the use of the images? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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/Helmut_Wick/archive1&oldid=880357390"