Jump to content

Talk:Theodor Weissenberger/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:39, 31 December 2014 (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.
  • Prose check

LeadcheckY

Early life and careercheckY

  • suggest a lang template for the first translation in the section Deutscher Luftsportverband
  • suggest He joined the military service of the Luftwaffe
  • the rank equivalents being used are unclear. US English is being used, so I assumed USAAF rank equivalents would be used. According to Aircraft of the Luftwaffe, 1935-1945: An Illustrated Guide (2009) p. 75, Feldwebel was equivalent to USAAF Technical Sergeant, Oberfeldwebel to USAAF Master Sergeant. Suggest putting rank equivalents in notes rather than in parentheses, to reduce clutter and improve flow of the prose.
    • Is the table below the Awards section sufficient to address the equivalency of ranks?MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think so. Because you (and I) use the "native" rank names, people read them and wonder what the equivalent is at that point. Notes allow them to hover over the note and get the info they want without having to look at the bottom. Of course, the ranks that don't relate to the subject aren't in that table either. There are also still a couple that aren't accurate equivalents (Junior Staff Sergeant and Senior Staff Sergeant). I've found that notes don't interrupt the flow of the prose so much. I'm not insisting on the notes, just that all equivalents are accurate.
        • Okay, I removed them altogether. Notes have to be placed after punctuation marks, if I am not mistaken. I am unsure if this helps the reader much because the note may not be placed where the information may be needed. Articles like Werner Mölders went to FAC without any translations, I guess that this is acceptable? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay with me, I'm just suggesting what I think are improvements. Just because something went to FAC doesn't mean it can't be improved. I'm sure you've edited that article since, I certainly continue to improve mine when I can. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World War IIcheckY

  • suggest Weissenberger was posted to a front-line unit on 27 August 1941, "Two years later" being explicit in the date.
  • worth adding that the Continuation War was fighting between the Soviets and the Finns.

War on the Arctic FrontcheckY

Knight's Cross of the Iron CrosscheckY

Oak Leaves to the Knight's CrosscheckY

Combat on the Western FrontcheckY

Flying the Messerschmitt Me 262checkY

Later lifecheckY

AwardscheckY

Wehrmachtbericht referencescheckY

  • the second ref mentions the Ostfront, but the victory was on the Western Front?

Dates of rankcheckY

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
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).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Placing on hold for seven days for remaining comments to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Passing now, remaining comments are not an obstacle to GA.[reply]

A couple of suggestions for A-Class by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • notes for the rank equivalents
  • place a bit more focus on the number of "ace-in-a-day" events. Perhaps by putting them in a table or by noting using ordinals which one each was ie "This was the fifth occasion on which he achieved "ace-in-a-day" status." or similar.
  • suggest dropping (1st Group) etc when you established the first translation of Gruppe. ie no need to repeat for 1st Group, 3rd Group.
  • suggest a table with his victories.