Jump to content

Talk:Carl Menckhoff/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 07:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this one. Comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • was a German First World War fighter ace Suggest "was a German fighter ace of the First World War". Helps break up the blue links.
  • aviation as a non-commissioned officer, but afterwards succeeded in being commissioned as an officer commissioned and officer used twice quite close to each other. Suggest rephrasing.
    • Plugged in Vizefeldwebel.

OK, happy with lead. Zawed (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]

I see his memoirs are cited for this entire section. I remain concerned about how heavily these are relied upon for this article and raises some questions. Some examples, just from this section alone: why does he "possibly" have ten siblings (does he not know how many brothers and sisters he had?); whose opinion is it that his father's linen business was successful (if it's his own, then the opinion is biased and should not be in Wiki voice); why is it only "probable" that he participated in balloon flights with his brother? There needs to be some critical scrutiny of what exactly the source is being used for throughout the article. Memoirs can be used to a certain extent, but not excessively, and even then with care: a good example of appropriate usage IMHO, is the final sentence of this section. You are using it there to express his own opinion which is OK in the context. Zawed (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that you don't have access to this particular source, so will have limited ability to check these. This is a drawback in taking articles through an assessment process where sources are not to hand. Zawed (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I share your uneasiness over the memoirs. I have done everything I can to reduce the article's reliance on this book. I really wish I could have viewed the source for myself.
Prior to this, I have submitted GANs where I was the creating/principal editor. This venture into representing other editors' work is enlightening, to say the least.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to join the Air Force.. This is the first mention of this branch of the military so should be Luftstreitkräfte (Air Force). Zawed (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Good catch.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military service

[edit]
  • reported for military service as a "one-year volunteer" Is it known what branch/national contingent? Ditto the Infantry Regiment in the following paragraph.
  • Suggest combining the first paragraph (its just one sentence} of this section with the previous section, then have the section heading as First World War. Maybe have the Aerial service has a second tier heading, i.e. same level as the Downfall heading.

Aerial service

[edit]
  • The amount of detail in the "Last stand in the sky" section is excessive considering the subject of the article is Menckhoff not Voss. It could be summarised and tacked onto the last sentence of the previous section (which is uncited) "It has long been thought that on 23 September, Menckhoff was the pilot of the red-nosed Albatros that attempted to come to the aid of one of Germany's leading fighter aces during the latter's fatal dogfight with eight British SE-5a fighters from No. 56 Squadron RFC, one being flown by James McCudden. The Albatros was driven off while Voss shot down killed. However, in 2013, Hannes Täger..." The heading doesn't really work either since it doesn't have a bearing on the section starting In October, Menckhoff was promoted... Zawed (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voss's last stand was one of the most notable air battles of the war, and is/has been extensively covered (and romanticized). Menckhoff's participation is mentioned in virtually every account of the battle, Voss's bio, or Menckhoff's bio without reservations. The account I wrote both acknowledges this and subtly debunks it.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I posted this note in this location somewhat out of frustration I couldn't point out that Menckhoff's insistence on shooting down enemy fighters is very unusual--maybe unprecedented. I have moved it in line with your suggestion, with minor rewriting.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cogitation and research produced an extensive rewrite.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also produced a linked table of victories.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Downfall and capture

[edit]

Post-war years

[edit]
  • In articles I have taken through GA/A-Class linking of cities/towns, even major ones, is a common request. I wouldn't link countries unless it was one that no longer exists e.g. British Malaya. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

[edit]
  • I've never been a big fan of sections that aren't in chronological order with the rest of the article. How do you feel about integrating this section into chronological order in the text? The last wife is already mentioned in the previous section.
    • Although Personal life is often given after a subject's professional life, I have never been comfortable with it for reasons of chronology. Still, this is a lot of info to work into the narrative. We shall see.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I agree that there are cases where it's better not to try to unravel personal and professional lives, I don't think this is one of them: Menckhoff seems to have kept the two quite distinct. Many readers will come to a biographical encyclopedia article not wanting to read the whole thing top-to-tail, but in search of limited information on some specific aspect of the subject's life. It's for their benefit that we split it into clearly identified sections and subsections, and – in this case, and in many others – it makes sense to me to separate out "Personal life". GrindtXX (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent points. I do respect the necessity for Personal life sections when indicated for clarity's sake. And I do believe this is one of those cases, because I am turning up more personal information for this section.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          Still not crazy about a separate Personal life section. The first wife and children could be mentioned in the early life section, and then just say in the Post-war years section that the first marriage was dissolved and that he had three more marriages that resulted in divorce or dissolution. The last sentence of the current second paragraph could end like: "owned by the family of his fifth wife, [name]." The mention of language skills could be shoehorned into the section that mentions taking his business international, presumably it would have been handy then. Admittedly I'm not sure how to deal with the mention of his appearance. As the cite seems to date from when he was shot down maybe work it in there? Actually the refusal to speak English because of French officers being present is interesting, it seems very respectful. Perhaps that could be worked in as well? Zawed (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • As noted, I am not a big fan of Personal life sections either. Still, pay attention to the farfetched suggestions you are making, to relocate these factoids so they can disrupt the textual flow. My view is, we're stuck with this section.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]
  • In May 2007, Walter Avery's daughter... Might pay to recap who Avery is at this point (e.g. In May 2007, the daughter of Walter Avery, who had shot down Menckhoff,...). I had a "who is he" moment and had to go back up the page to find out.

Notes and sources

[edit]
  • Tager is the main source used but as editor of Menckhoff's memoir, which would be considered a primary source itself. Are there footnotes, cites etc... that suggest Tager did some checking/verification of Menckhoff's statements/claims. There are several points where Tager is used as one of two or more refs. If the other ref or refs supports entirely what is stated, I suggest removing the Tager ref so that it is not as heavily cited.
  • As noted above, there is still a strong reliance on Tager. There are also a heck of a lot of page ranges encompassed within a single cite. E.g. cite 3 is covered by pages 14–16, 19–20, 72, 218–20.
  • As a general comment, there are some variances in the page ranges, which is a mix of hyphens and en-dashes. Zawed (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest with you, I find the form used for the cites to be overwhelming. While I am not proposing that they be redone here as it is my understanding that ultimately it may be a matter of preference, as a general comment, I suggest that you consider using the sfn style of citation for your work on future articles. I find them simpler to use, even for works by the same author published in the same year. I deal with that by assigning designators on the publication year, e.g. 2021a, 2021b. Zawed (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the sfn and sfnp system of citing. What's the difference? It's strictly a "monkey see, monkey do" struggle for me to use that system. And, as you noted, you need workarounds to deal with situations like those found in the aviation history field.
  • I come to WP from a writing background--publication history back to the 1970s, education up to MFA. Such wiki markup as I have mastered has been simple copywork, without real understanding of the process. My focus is on writing articles, not coding for them. A cite that ties in book titles does not have to be "translated" by me. In your format, I have to use the author names to look up the titles...then the light bulb goes on.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might add, I see little reason for redoing and redoing the cites. I think we should agree on a given system, so only one of us corrects cites. Which, BTW, should not be you. You are a reviewer, but not a co-author (at least in this instance), and you should not waste your time on the editing I should be doing. Please, husband your energies for reviewing, at which you excel.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff

[edit]

That's my first pass done. Will check back in a while. I understand that the Wolff article will be your focus for the moment. Zawed (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unrequested changes

[edit]

1) When I create articles on WWI aviation, I avoid the present citation method. Because the same few authors/coauthors write in this niche, this citation method is usually pretty dry and confusing. I find an alternate citation form works better, as you shall see after the change.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) Okay, citation conversion complete. Note that this is not final. As I work my way through your list, I will be still be verifying cites, deleting them, etc. But right now, I need a break.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3) The first difficulty. Neither of the seemingly identical Guttman books can be accessed through Amazon's Look Inside feature, nor can the Tager reference. Best I can do is take these on good faith, while trying to reduce the article's reliance on them.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4) Added subheader under Aerial service: From infantry duty to aviation service. Resisted impulse to make it From mud to the clouds.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5) Made another try at peeking into the Guttmans and Tager. No luck.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6) Rewrite of he lede was not requested, but was inevitable given the degree of change to the article.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A matter of perspective

[edit]

My GANs are not an ego show. While gaining GA approval is satisfying, a GA failure won't hurt my feelings. My aim is to considerably improve WP's article via a GAN. As you will see when you get to Noltenius, I can utilize even the worst reviews.

In the present case, I can see excellent reason for you to fail this GAN. Large chunks of it cannot be verified. If you should choose to fail it for that reason, I will not object, nor will I resubmit it. I will find another article to work upon, and leave Menckhoff to a future reviewer with greater access to the materials.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your considered thoughts here. I remain uneasy with the reliance on Tager and its unfortunate unavailability for verification. While there are still things I believe require further work, these are not insurmountable (and some of those I will concede are probably more a matter of personal preference rather than a need to meet GA criteria), if it were not for the Tager issue, this Menckhoff article would end up as a GA in due course. Bearing in mind your perspective as outlined here, I am leaning towards failing the article and will do so in the next day or so unless you can see an alternative or gain access to a replacement source for Tager. It is frustrating as I have invested some time in reviewing this article and that probably pales in comparison to the time you will have spent on the article. At least, if nothing else, it is in better shape than when you first found it. Zawed (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just made one more attempt to access Tager, with no luck.
At this point, I guess we are at a dead end. This is the first GAN failure I ever sponsored, out of 100+, if we ignore a couple of temporary failures a la Noltenius. It's certainly changed my approach toward GANs. I am going to take more time investigating articles I did not create before I take them on as a GAN.
While I am pretty philosophic about this, I can imagine you are rather disappointed. I appreciate your diligence and ability as a reviewer--you are terrific. However, WP did gain a much improved B Class article from your reviewing efforts. I hope you can take some satisfaction from that.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for that one last scout for Tager. I've gone ahead and failed this for now. Maybe one day, you or another editor will come across a source that will allow a second go at GA for this one. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I ever can get access to Tager.... But I'm through for now.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_Menckhoff/GA1&oldid=999232896"