Talk:Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   ?

Comments

1. Some citation tags need looking at  Done
2. There are a number of disamb links that need fixing Honington, Jagdgeschwader 1, Mildenhall and Wing Commander  Done
3. Germany in the inf box should direct to Nazi Germany  Done
4. There seems to be too many commanders listed in the inf box four for the three RAF squadrons and six for the German. Can theses be cut down to Wing of senior level commanders.  Done
5. This needs re-wording as it sounds as if they started before the declaration of war Which had been sent to sea before the British declaration of war and began operations against British shipping  Done
6. This bit in the Prior operations section seems out of place No. 9 Squadron RAF also took part, hitting targets in Brunsbüttel. they took off to bomb three warships but one squadron bombs Brunsbüttel instead ?  Done
7. Again in the Prior operations section at first the ships are named as Gneisenau, Scharnhorst and Admiral Scheer but later it mentions Emden was damaged.  Done
8. I think the middle section is overcrowded with images and at least one RAF and Luftwaffe plane could be deleted  Done
9. Still thinking about the RAF formation instead of the aircraft number in the image use the names and delete the order of battle. OK bit more If we take away the image and list all we have left in the RAF section is The RAF forrces came from three squadrons, totalling 24 Wellington Bombers from No. 9 Squadron RAF, No. 37 Squadron RAF, No. 149 Squadron RAF.[29] The British bombers flew a diamond shape formation. This needs expanding possibly by turning the list of aircraft/commanders etc into prose  Done - the text is less confusing and people now have a neat list of pilot/aircraft no/squadron and an easy numbered image which they can follow. Dapi89 (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
10. In the aerial engagement section fire from the German units, 214, 244 and 264 what type of units were they did they have a regiment etc Same next line down  Done
11. In the bibliography = Hooton, E.R.. Luftwaffe at War: Gathering Storm 1933-1939, Classic Publications, 2007 does not appear to have been used  Done
12. The cite book template could be used
13. Some books lack publishing locations  Done
14. Richards, Denis. Royal Air Force 1939–1945:Volume I needs an ISBN if one issued  Done

Further comment

1. References both Caldwell & Muller and Caldwell and Muller is used, can the all be changed to the second option as & are discouraged.  Done
2. I don't know if you caught it above the the RAF section needs beefing up. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)  Done

Comment

Re: image and RAF orbat. I think it would be a good idea to do as you first suggest. I think deleting the numbers and adding in the names to people know who was placed where. Is this okay? We tried a prose version but it looked like a bit of a mess. Hohim changed it and I think it looks better with the image. Do I have to use the cite books template? Dapi89 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No its not a GA requirement but it does help getting them right --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1. In the Luftwaffe section can the bullet points be converted in prose --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)  Done

I think it was but Hohum changed this into bullet points. I'll switch it back if needs must. Dapi89 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Passed Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)