Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rudolf Berthold

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.

Nomination withdrawn at nominator's request. Anotherclown (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Berthold edit

Nominator(s): Georgejdorner

I am nominating this article for A-Class review on behalf of George per his edit here. George has worked extensively on this article in an effort to bring it up to A-class standard and is requesting a review to see if it up to scratch. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Rupert for his technical help,and many cheers for him.

I have quintupled the size of this article while working in information from the most recent biography of the subject. It is completely and reliably cited. I ruthlessly edited it before presentation. That included spinning off his victory list into a subsidiary article a la Manfred von Richthofen. I believe it is professionally written, and worthy of promotion. More than that, it is an amazing tale of martial courage and fiery patriotism, about a hero who successfully scored 16 of his 44 victories flying one-handed.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question why don't you take the article to GA review first? The natural article quality lifecycle is from Stub -> Start -> C -> B -> GA -> A -> FA; check Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I believe it is of A Class quality, and a GA review is not mandatory.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is benefit to a GA review. If the article passes GA the rating applies to all projects such as Aviation, Biography, Milhist, etc. Following a successful GA review the article is identified as a GA article by adding the GA icon to the upper right hand corner of the article and this is visible to all other languages as well. The A-class review only applies to Milhist and in some cases to the affiliated projects. With this I am not saying that the article is not of A-class quality, I am trying to say that you miss an opportunity to show the quality of the article to a greater audience.MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't realized that little quirk in the assessment process existed. Certainly will have to take it into account in the future.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried using the {{Cite book}} template? It should help you format the reference correctly MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Armee-Abteilung A you translated it with "Army Division A", I think "Army Department A" or "Army Detachment A" fits better. Division is a bit ambiguous MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I do not speak German, I used the Bing translator, which produced the above. If a German speaker supplies a more accurate translation, I will probably use it.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not that difficult to learn. As a matter of fact even young kids speak the language. Maybe you should search the article for Abteilung (example Flieger-Ersatz-Abteilung). In two instances you use Detachment and in the instance of Armee-Abteilung A you provide Division as the translation. At least ask Mr Bing to provide you with a consistent translation. :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

"while hospitalized for four months. Sneaking from hospital,": I'm American, but reasonably comfortable with BritEng. I generally don't recommend concessions to American ears in BritEng articles, except in cases where Americans won't have a clue, are likely to misread, or are likely to think they're looking at a typo (which is of course a problem on Wikipedia ... things that look like mistakes draw edits, whether they're mistakes or not). I'll also recommend something if there are several things together that may strike copyeditors as problems (depending on who you ask). Most English-speakers think "from hospital" needs a "the", and there are two other things that some copyeditors will react to here: the close repetition of "hospitalized ... hospital", and "sneaking from" (which is unidiomatic in AmEng). So ... you make the call. I'd probably just strike "Sneaking from hospital" (particularly since "once again bolted from medical care" in the next paragraph reinforces the idea). - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You apparently did not not see the American usage tag on the talk page. However, you do raise some points about usage at which I shall take another look.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true, I didn't realize you were aiming for American English, from what I saw in the lead. Okay, I probably don't have much to offer here, then. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would much rather sort through any and all of your responses than have you curtail your comments.
    - I substituted "decamping" for "sneaking".Georgejdorner (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"he shot down 14 more enemy airplanes by 8 August 1918. Two days later, he shot down his final two victims on his final flight before being downed. Two days after that": I'd go with: "he shot down 16 more enemy airplanes before being downed for the last time on 10 August 1918. Two days after that" - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, this deserves another look.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk)

Nominator's note: Please withdraw this nomination, as I am no longer participating in Wikipedia.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2013 (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.