Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Oswald Boelcke

< 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.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Oswald Boelcke edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk)

Oswald Boelcke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Oswald Boelcke has been dubbed "The Father of Aerial Warfare" because of his pioneering of aerial tactics, his development of the world's first aerial tactical manual, and his role in founding the Imperial German Air Service. The fighter squadron he founded, trained, and led, Jagdstaffel 2, produced 25 flying aces; Jasta 2 aces were often transferred to lead other squadrons. When Boelcke was killed in a midair collision, he was the leading ace of the First World War with 40 victories. Boelcke and his protege, Manfred von Richthofen, were the two leading German aces of the war. The Dicta Boelcke tactics manual is still used to train fighter pilots.

CommentsSupport by MisterBee1966 edit

The entire section "Awards and honors" is missing citations. Some of the awards are referenced in the main body of the article, but not all. I believe that every single entry requires a reference, otherwise the section has to be removed or scaled down. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The two cites given are the source for this section; they were copied from a list on page 147. I do not see any point in listing the same citation a dozen times in a row. Are repeated duplicate cites a necessity for A Class?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it is unclear to me if the two citations refer to the Order of Bravery, 3rd class and the Honors only or to all awards in that section. Until this is clearer my vote is not to promote this article. Why are the (de:Boelcke-Kaserne (Koblenz)) Boelcke Barracks in Koblenz not mentioned? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have supplied an identical repetitive cite for every award. Does that satisfy?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found no mention of the Coblenz barracks in my research. Certainly a cited addition to the article would be welcome.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • You may also want to go to google maps and search for Boelcke, next to the Boelcke Baracks, a number of streets named after him also pop up MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I must beg your indulgence for my lateness. I am dealing with some medical issues just now. I have researched Google maps, and will update ASAP.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still researching. Search is complicated by the fact Oswald is not the only Boelcke honored.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about the rescue ship Boelcke, see de:Boelcke (Schiff)? You can also find reference to this ship online. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alas, I am monolingual. And given the errors in the previous two 'Google translates' in this article, I am not inclined to trust it. Nor did I find a reliable source with 'Google search'.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you checked the book "The Naval War in the Baltic, 1939–1945" by Poul Grooss, ISBN 978-1-5267-0002-5? You may also look into "Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945: Spezial-, Hilfskriegs-, Hilfsschiffe, Kleinschiffsverbände" by Erich Gröner or "Rettungsaktion Ostsee 1944/1945" by Martin Schmidtke. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Grooss book has been ordered via Interlibrary Loan; it may take some weeks to show up. I have preserved the German language sources on the article's Talk page for the use of German speaking editors.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor edits, fixing brackets and removing overlinking, I support the nomination MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7 edit

Drive-by from HF edit

  • I'm concerned about some WP:TONE issues in the article. I don't think phrasings such as "On 9 August, Immelmann pounced on a French machine" or "Their early combat sorties relied on the naked aggression of headlong solo attacks upon unwitting enemies"
    "pounced on" replaced by "attacked".Georgejdorner (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrote "naked aggression" sentence. Supplied more reliable cite for less dramatic statement. I might add, that the original cite from Head is a bit too subtle and ambiguous, but still true.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as he was killed in action[101] before the Nazi Party was founded." is probably WP:SYNTH. The cited page of Kershaw's biography makes no mention of Boelcke; and the google books snippet of the bit from Head at the beginning of the sentence doesn't seem to say why he wasn't associated with the Nazis. I can't check the citation to VanWyngarden but it appears to be about his death. So this appears to be associating a statement that he wasn't Nazi-associated to a statement about when he died to a statement about when the Nazi party was formed, creating a synthesized statement not supported by any of the sources individually. We can't play cause-and-effect guessing games. Hog Farm Talk 16:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I was trying to show that since Boelcke died in 1916 and the forerunner of the Nazi Party was not founded until 1918, it is absurd to portray the ace as even a proto-Nazi. There is considerable discussion upon Boelcke and the Nazis on the article talk page, as there was an editor who wanted to blame Boelcke for Holocaust deaths in barracks named for Boelcke.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was innocently ignorant of WP:SYNTH until now. I do find it interesting that the editor who was so insistent that a Nazi concentration camp is Boelcke's legacy seemed to use synthesis to make her point. Without that, the claim that Boelcke died before the Nazis came to exist is unneeded. In the meantime, I am looking for a source for the origin date of the Nazi party. (Boelcke's death can be cited from a number of sources; the one used was most convenient.)Georgejdorner (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Head: "He was one of the few German heroes of the Great War who was not tainted by later association with Nazism."Georgejdorner (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify, I never suggested that Boelcke was a Nazi, which obviously can't be true because of the chronology. But notable structures named after him should be mentioned in the article, whether used admirably or not (its use does a disservice to Boelcke, I agree, but WP:NOTCENSORED). (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify your clarification: The Head quote above was a response to Hog Farm's failure to find information. It had nothing to do with structures named after Boelcke. That particular discussion already took place at great length on the article's talk page.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine edit

Interesting subject, will review over the next few days. As a first comment from a quick perusal of the article, the lede uses the form "Father of Air Fighting Tactics", while the actual cited appellation is "the father of air combat". Constantine ✍ 16:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

  • Be consistent between using World War I or First World War.
  • Link 'observer', 'World War II'
    • Linked 'aerial observer'. Linking World Wars smacks of MOS:OL.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is about providing a link to the main articles, not about explaining common terms to readers, though. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not believe that anyone would read up on a WWI ace without knowledge there was such a war. Nope. That's an overlink.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, this is not about awareness of the war, but ease of access to the parent article for more details. But agree to disagree. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • awarded the Pour le Mérite, add something to the effect that this was Germany's highest award for gallantry.
  • Present day -> Present-day
  • After a month's holiday leave spent on a military inspection tour of Turkish facilities add when this was, to provide context; the last date mentioned is October 1916, whereas this was before that.
  • Boelcke was picked to lead one of Germany's first fighter squadrons, Jagdstaffel 2 (Fighter Squadron 2) ditto, e.g. add 'in September 1916'.
  • During the short time before his death, Boelcke became the world's leading fighter pilot, scoring 21 more victories while commanding Jagdstaffel 2. Somewhat redundant, perhaps 'While commanding Jagdstaffel 2, Boelcke became the world's leading fighter pilot, scoring 21 more victories'.

Early years

  • near the Junkers factory In view of what Junkers later became, this is a neat coincidence, but is this otherwise notable?
  • Boelcke never did become very large; I don't know why one would expect him to be very large, but 1.70 was above average for Germany (and likely the rest of the world) at the time. Perhaps 'Boelcke was of moderate height'?
    • As I am excessively tall (1.95 meters), I do tend to misjudge. Correction made.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still reads odd to me, as it inadvertently implies that he should be large, but wasn't. Just 'Boelcke was of average size. In later life, he was described as being about 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 meters) tall.' or similar should suffice. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a rather daring Alpinist...His charisma made him...made him memorable specifically? This smells more than a bit of MOS:PUFFERY.
    • Head, p. 39: "He loved the sport and quickly became 'a skilled and fearless climber'....
    • Head, p.40: "They (other boys) admired him as the best athlete in gymnastics, and they submitted willingly to his leadership."
    • If puffery there be, 'tis not by me.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No doubt, but then quote him directly, or tone it down. Since we can be pretty certain that Head did not interview all the boys who 'submitted willingly to his leadership', we are safe in assuming this is a bit of hero worship slipping through. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me, it reads like an assessment by a teacher. Nevertheless, I have rephrased it.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • It still contains some descriptions that are clearly subjective. 'Rather daring' is an evaluation that cannot be measured or verified. It is an opinion, and must be attributed, not presented as fact. Likewise about him being popular or memorable on account of his appearance. It is likely that these are true, but we should distinguish the voice of the biographers from that of Wikipedia. Constantine ✍ 09:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rewrote sentence on Alpine skills.
            • However, his early leadership skills foreshadow his future military role. I have toned down the rhetoric.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which leads me to Werner 1942/2019. I have occasionally read some Nazi-era books, the wording is anything but sober and objective, and I suspect Werner wrote his book to lionize Boelcke and get more German youths to join the Luftwaffe, rather than as a scholarly biography of the man. I suggest treating it with extreme caution as a source on Boelcke's character.
    • Head was the major text I used. I checked his footnotes to insure I was not reusing Werner, etc without realizing it. Same with other supplementary sources. I might add that I have such loathing for the Nazis, I dislike writing about any of them.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, just as a word of caution. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, keeping the bullshit detector running is important while using any sources.06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • could move its adherent up the social ladder 'adherent' reads odd. Perhaps 'would provide opportunities for upward social mobility'?
  • Link 'Kaiser', 'airship', '1916 Olympics' (and note they were to be held in Berlin)
    • Linked 'Kaiser', 'airship', '1916 Olympics'. Linked '1916 Olympics.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • had the audacity again, editorializing. And, for the record, not so odd: Willy was a pop star for his time, and petitions to the monarch are as old as monarchy itself.
    • At 10 years old, Boelcke was not quite yet a pop star.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • By Willy, Kaiser Wilhelm is meant. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have completely confused me with the pop star reference. Though I have scant experience with monarchy, I doubt that many ten year old children write to emperors. Only the audacious ones.
          • Not that important. My point is that Kaiser Wilhelm II was very much a celebrity during his day, with photos of him in his various outfits, tours of cities and factories, the media following on his every move and utterance. We often forget this in light of WWI and its aftermath, but he was for a very long time a sort of 'people's monarch'. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, okay. They don't teach such facts in American schools. Thank you for the enlightment.
  • but once his parents were apprised of the opportunity by the belated reply letter, they objected Why? This contradicts their views as established in the previous sentence.
    • This is baffling, but according to sources. I found no reason for their actions. I can only speculate. Mom wanted him closer to home?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoops! Found out parents wanted Oswald to finish his education.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entry into military service

  • in Metz, at that time a German town elaborate a bit, or remove the last part. Most people don't know where Metz is, or why it should not now be a German town.
    • Serves me right for copying from a source without understanding it.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps link 'swordknot' to Unteroffiziere mit Portepee?
    • Perhaps. But it seems to be a distinction with no real difference.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that for most readers, "swordknot ensign" is not a term they will have encountered before, and it merits explanation. Constantine ✍ 08:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The actual point is, I do not understand "swordknot ensign".Georgejdorner (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • 'Swordknot ensign' is the literal translation of Fähnrich mit Portepee. However, since this was removed and simplified, I just suggest adding the German term (Fähnrich) and the translation in parentheses, for consistency in dealing with ranks. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Upon rereading the source, I am presented with the info he was first commissioned as ensign, then promoted to swordknot ensign before further promotion to Leutnant. So is swordknot ensign an intermediate rank between ensign and Leutnant?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • To be honest I am not an expert on the minutiae of German rank distinctions. What I know is that a Fähnrich ranked as a senior NCO, but was effectively a sort of officer candidate, so he had the right to carry the officers' sword knot (Portepee). I would hazard a guess that the 'promotion' mentioned in the sources is his taking the exam that gave him the right to wear the sword knot? Don't quote me on that, though... Constantine ✍ 20:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Source does not mention Fahnrich. I have opted for 'ensign', although many readers will be unfamiliar with the term. Ah, well, time to grow the vocabulary.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1914

  • Fliegertruppen des deutschen Kaiserreiches. The German Empire never referred to itself as 'deutsches Kaiserrreich'. That is a descriptive/historiographic term to distinguish the pre-1918 'Imperial' German Reich from the post-1918 republican state. I have a hunch that this does not reflect an actual title, but is descriptive.
    • This is one of several English terms for the German air force. Others are 'Fliegertruppen ' and 'Imperial German Air Service'. Are you requesting a change? If so, to what?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean that the German term is very likely wrong/anachronistic, in that it is descriptive rather than the actual formal name. I suggest simply "the Fliegertruppen (Flying Troops)". Constantine ✍ 08:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for enlightening me. I have replaced the term with one more easily comprehended by English-speakers.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The term Fliegertruppe is still used later on, but nowhere explained before. Perhaps something like 'a transfer to duty with the German Army's aviation troops (Fliegertruppe)'? Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fixed. Added explanation of usage when term first occurs lower down.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will continue very soon. Constantine ✍ 18:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1915

  • His new assignment brought him friendship with Max Immelmann how?
  • I would suggest moving the header 'Advent of the flying gun' to before Roland Garros of France's Service Aéronautique
  • de-bolden M.5K/MG
  • explain and translate the acronym IdFlieg on first occurrence.
  • Anthony Fokker is linked twice in the same section, Metz has already been linked before.
  • Until recorded his experiences in July 1916 something missing here.
  • 'Abteilung' in military context means 'Detachment' or even 'Battalion' (for artillery and technical services), not 'Department'.
  • but it fell behind French lines by 'it' you refer to the plane shot down, but it is not clear; the last thing mentioned is the Fokker.

1916

  • In the caption for the Pour le merite, link the VC and MoH.
  • an upcoming offensive against the French. I think the Battle of Verdun is sufficiently known and notable that it can be mentioned by name (e.g. 'the upcoming offensive at Verdun')
  • headquarters of Crown Prince Wilhelm clarify that this was the Prussian crown prince, since Germany had a few of them, and there was also the CP of Bavaria as a prominent front commander (and in this article).
  • the usual tactics of pointblank fire are nowhere before mentioned or otherwise explained
    • Last sentence, Creation of Jagdstaffel 2: "I only open fire when I can see the goggle strap on my opponent's crash helmet." That's a pretty vivid example of his tactic of point-blank fire.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nieuport 11s. plural is unnecessary
  • link 'pusher aircraft', 'Hauptmann', 'Turkey' to Ottoman Empire, 'Auftragstaktik', 'Somme offensive', relink 'Constantinople' to Istanbul, link air superiority, Bulgaria; unlink 'Feldflieger Abteilung'
  • since 'the emperor' is the previously mentioned Kaiser, I suggest using the latter for consistency
    • I think I changed this even before I got this far down the list.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the officer in combat knows best which tactics will succeed I would rephrase that to something like 'that the officer in the field knows best which tactics to employ in order to achieve a set goal'.
    • I'll stick with text as written. Strategy has a goal; tactics are only military tools.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is incorrect. There are tactical objectives just as much as operational or strategic ones; tactics and strategy are different levels of warfare. The essence of Auftragstaktik is that the higher-ups set the goal/objective, and the officer tasked (hence 'Auftrag') with achieving it is allowed to choose how. This, IMO, would not be understood from the current phrasing by anyone unfamiliar with the subject. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rather than offer my counter-arguments, I have removed the term on the grounds that it is obscure enough the average reader won't miss it.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dicta were published capitalize and italicize 'dicta'
    • Dicta is also an English word.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • But a) here it refers to a specific work, and b) I very much doubt the average reader who hasn't had Latin at school knows it. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the term was originally Latinate before being adopted by both German and English speakers. The question here is, which language we are using when we use 'dicta'/Dicta?
          • Judging from the POV of the average reader, I think it is easier/less confusing to just refer to Boelcke's work, hence Dicta. To anyone who doesn't know the meaning of the term, dicta simply looks like a typo error. Constantine ✍ 20:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He held... to a minimum 'He kept... to a minimum'
  • Link and italicize German ranks in the caption of the photo with Buddecke and von Sanders, and relink Turkey to Ottoman Empire
    • And make the caption about 80% links? No, but I did italicize the ranks because they are German language.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the acronym Jasta should always be capitalized as it is a German term
  • 'Lieutenant General' is not quite the same as Generalleutnant. For accuracy and consistency, I suggest sticking to the German ranks.
  • Crown Prince Rupert as above, not that he was CP of Bavaria.
  • visiting Wilhelm clarify that this is his older brother, not the Kaiser
  • Why were there so many pilots at Kovel?
    • Wilhelm Boelcke's air unit was stationed there, as I have now noted.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use {{lang|de|}} for German terms
    • ??
      • Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, instead of adding italics with ''foreign word'', wrap in the template like this: {{lang|de|foreign word}}. This allows automatic text parsers/readers and even your browser to distinguish the language foreign terms are in. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • The 336 victories the jasta scored during the war came at the price of 44 casualties Are we talking about all Jastas or only Jasta 2?

That's it for a first read-through. I am not an expert on the subject, but the article appears to be quite comprehensive. The tone is rather sympathetic to its subject, but, with the exceptions noted above, I don't think it is biased. A nice read. Constantine ✍ 20:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgejdorner: my comments have been addressed, so I am happy to support. Well done! Constantine ✍ 10:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF (take 2) edit

Aside from my drive-by comments above, I'm going to try to give this one a fuller review Hog Farm Talk 23:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Boelcke never did become very large; he was of average size. In later life, he was described as being about 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 meters) tall" - recommend just removing the "never did become very large" and note that he was of average size and listing the later life height
  • I'm a bit concerned about some of the phrasing here - "rather daring Alpinist", "had the audacity", etc. I suspect that what's going on is that many of the sources are in more of the "fanboy" tier of military biography, the writing style of those sources is coming into the article. I don't think some of the items like that are necessarily encyclopedic tone.
    • I've rewritten the Alpinist remark. I still believe it was daring for a ten year old child to write his emperor.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ready for WWI section, pausing for now. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Eindecker were limited to be flights when pilots were not on reconnaissance missions in their two-seaters." - I'm not sure what exactly the second half of this is suppose to be saying - the meaning is pretty clearly that you weren't suppose to take the Eindecker over enemy lines, but this seems to be a really convoluted way of saying that. At a minimum, I think "in their two-seaters" can be lost
  • "In the glare of German publicity, Wintgens had claimed five victims, Boelcke two and Immelmann one." - so I guess "Boelcke won his first individual aerial combat on 19 August 1915 forcing down a British plane" doesn't count here, with the July 4 and August 9 victories in the count?
    • Congrats, you have caught your fanboy. While Prof Werner relates the 9 August combat, later historians do not list it.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 1 November, the day after his sixth victory, Boelcke was awarded the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern" - no detail about victories #5 and #6? He's at 2 at the end of August we're told at the end of the prior section, and he got two more in September, but it just skips to after 6?
    • Do you expect all 40 victories to be individually covered in this article?Georgejdorner (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it would be useful to give all in detail, but at least something like "He scored two more victories in [timeframe]" would be useful. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not think it useful, either. That's why I limited my mention of victories to those I considered significant.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Immelmann duplicated the feat six days later" - is "the feat" the award or six victories? If it's the former, I'm not sure this is the best phrasing as Immelmann didn't award himself the honor, so he didn't really duplicate it actively.
  • "On 5 January 1916, the winter weather finally improved enough for flying." - we weren't told that it had gotten bad enough to prevent flying earlier that winter
    • Indeed, the source does not give a date for the onset of foul winter weather.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it a bit of an anachronism to refer to Turkey instead of the Ottoman Empire at this point?
  • "Its eight maxims seem self-evident, but Boelcke was the first to recognize them." - this seems like a touch of editorializing
    • Most folks reading the maxims would find them self-evident. No one codified them until Boelcke. Where's the editorial in that?Georgejdorner (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for "Into battle" Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's it to this point. Will return later to insert the foreign language templates.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure of the use the Google maps knowledge panel to demonstrate existence of something - it's been found in a few AFDs of places in the US that turned out to be non-existent that the knowledge panel sometimes scraped Wikipedia. I'm also not convinced that the streets/buildings/etc are necessarily worthwhile to mention if the only source is the Google maps thing; there are surely countless bars and businesses named after Boelcke.
    • MisterBee1966 suggested the use of google maps. I used the maps because info on Boelcke's legacy is scant.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • While it's one thing to use that for streets or military barracks, how do you determine that the clubhouse is significant just based off on the Google maps? This would almost certainly be challenged at FAC if you were going to take it there. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not particularly keen on these listings, either. I included them to prevent MrBee1966 from vetoing this promotion. I have also clarified that the club is a military officers club on the perimeter of a military installation. Mt google search turned up no other bars/lounges, and I would not list them if it did.
        • If there should be an objection during the FAC, I'll ditch these listings.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's mainly it from me; I'm not assessing the sourcing because I'm not familiar with most of it. Hog Farm Talk 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for A-Class, although I don't think I'd support at FAC with the Google maps issue. I don't feel confident to assess source quality. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources are well-regarded WWI aviation historians. Their texts are produced by two publishing houses dedicated to military nonfiction--Grub Street Publishing and Osprey Press.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgejdorner ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, all, but my 11 year old router died on the 27th, and I have just now gotten back online.
Is there anything still pending in this review?Georgejdorner (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • Fn 115 is formatted differently to the others. Suggest using {{sfnp}} instead of {{sfn}}
  • Fn 118 is also formatted differently, and has no access date. Consider using {{cite we}} for Fn 116 through 119
  • Sources are high quality
  • What is the Popular Mechanics entry in the Further reading about?
    • Discusses Boelcke's influence on present day fighter forces.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks: 17, 92, 106, 112, 116, 118 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:45, 29 June 2022 (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/Oswald_Boelcke&oldid=1096971342"