Talk:Hans Berr/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 13:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to reviewing this article a little later. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think putting the rank of the soldier at the start of the article is how it's done usually?
- That has been a matter of running debate for the 12 years I have been in Wikiland. I've never heard of a decisive consensus or resulting policy on the matter. I err on the side of completeness if I can.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink to World War I
- WP policy excuses editors from linking to common knowledge items. Besides, why would someone researching a WWI ace not even know what WWI was?
- See WP:CK.
"as his contribution to the Fokker Scourge." better wording is need here. Perhaps "during the Fokker Scourge".
- As reflected in both the text and in the victory list appended to the article, Berr's first two victories were part of that series of German victories known as the Fokker Scourge. Sentence is most accurate as written.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say "Leading by example" is a very encyclopedic phrase.
- Expanded. Please see below for my take on "encyclopedic".Georgejdorner (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a 6 April 1917 dogfight, Berr mortally collided with his wingman. I suggest changing this to During a dogfight on 6 April 2017, Berr died after colliding with his wingman.
- Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Berr was seriously wounded." you should be more specific here by saying how and where he was wounded, if that information is available.
- No further info in source.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"aerial service as an observer/gunner" this needs clarification. Were the roles simultaneous? Was he trained for both separately? etc.
- I used the term "observer/gunner" to inform the reader that the observer could fire at enemies. The alternative is a link to aerial observer, which does not mention the observer shooting at anyone. Bit of a conundrum here.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Berr was assigned to an ad hoc unit of Fokker Eindecker fighters at Avillers" this is the first time you mention Avillers so you need to introduce it and include a wikilink if possible.
- With three Avillers to choose from, I could not determine a link. Did add "France" to text.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

initial comments, more to come. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Eindeckers were the first true fighter planes; with their synchronizer gear slaved to their machine guns, they could fire through their own propeller arc without damaging the blades and shooting themselves down. is the information from this sentence cited by the reference at the end of the paragraph or is it WP:OR?
- Neither. I missed including a cite. And this latest look shows me the cites I inherited in this article are pretty ratty. I'll supply the missing cite when I revamp the lot.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cites redone. Missing cite supplied.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On an evening patrol on 20 October, his victim was a British Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2b this sentence should be combined with the previous one.

- I don't see any merit in mashing two incidents on two separate dates into a single sentence. Instead of two simple easily understood sentences, you would have one complicated mess.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Now the awards caught up to the valor." I'm not sure what this means and it certainly doesn't sound encyclopedic.
- Meant to comment on lag in time between feats of bravery and consequent awards. You are indeed correct to call me out on its murkiness. Rewritten.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on encyclopedic voice

No one who has thrown the request for encyclopedic voice at me has ever specified which encyclopedic voice. Brittanica? Funk and Wagnalls? World Book? My Encyclopedia of Very Important Things For Little Learners?
Everyone who has tossed the encyclopedic complaint at me was suggesting a duller dumber less colorful alternative word or phrase. Apparently, encyclopedic voice is meant to be boring enough to turn away readers.
I prefer reader-friendly prose with a touch of occasional color to keep reader interest.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I'm afraid this is where the article is let down. I have tried to list some of the issues in the article above, but I feel like this article needs a lot of repair as it is hard to read and understand well. I suggest you request for a copyeditor at WP:GOCE to edit the article to try and make it more readable.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Likewise, the manual of style needs to be looked at here. A copyeditor should help out with this.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Could do with some more references, but good nonetheless.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	This is generally good, but please check the site billiongraves.com for reliability.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is a query above asking about original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focussed
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images checked and fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images relevant
	7. Overall assessment.	I am going to fail this article, I'm afraid, for the reasons discussed at the top of this box. The article still needs significant work to bring it up to standard. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]