Talk:Friedrich Noltenius/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 09:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll do this review. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

GAFAIL

Hello, Georgejdorner, I have no option but to immediately fail this review because the article is a long way short of GA standard. I'm setting out my reasons below and hopefully these points will help you to develop the article so that it may be renominated in future.

1. The immediate and most pressing problem is the Template:Tone banner that was placed by Brigade Piron on 28 September, only a day after the article was nominated at GAN. I'm disappointed to see that the issue has not in any been addressed since then. Point 3 of WP:GAFAIL specifies: "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid". I have read the article and I entirely agree with Brigade Piron that the tone is in serious need of improvement. That, however, is only one issue.
   1. I was not notified that Template:Tone was posted. I became aware of it only while reading this failure notice. I will address the issue.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
2. The lead is far too short and does not provide a summary of the narrative which is its main purpose as outlined at MOS:LEAD.
   1. Lede has been extended.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Section 1 has no linkage and some effort is needed to provide links for terms like Bremen, Professor of Medicine, Field Artillery Regiment No. 13, Eastern Front, Western Front and commissioned. I appreciate that some terms like Field Artillery Regiment No. 13 might not have an article but, even so, there is field artillery and it is possible that this regiment belonged to a larger unit that can be linked with a pipe to the regiment.
   1. Linkages provided in this section. I will look for additional linkages further within the article.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
4. The younger Noltenius graduated from high school in Bremen. The war then interrupted his medical studies. This needs to be expanded and written so that there is some flow in the narrative. His father was a "Professor of Medicine" so the narrative should say that Noltenius wanted to follow him into the profession and, having graduated from high school, was studying medicine at... do we know where? Then Germany entered the war on 1 August 1914 and, his studies disrupted, Noltenius enlisted on the 4th, etc. The narrative needs more substance and this comment applies throughout the article, though I'm highlighting the opening section as an example.
   1. I do tend to hew closely to the source material. For instance, in the example given above, the date of Germany's declaration of war is not given in the source. However, I have slightly expanded these two paragraphs from the source.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
5. It is usual to cite author(s) and page number(s), not the title and page number(s).
   1. There is a cadre of aviation authors who have written books in this niche, and they tend to be one another's co-authors. The author/page number format becomes confusing in such a situation. I have opted for a more easily understood variation of citation for articles in this historical niche.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
6. The see also at the start of section 2 should be a hatnote if appropriate or a separate section at the end of the narrative. See MOS:SEEALSO.
   1. The See also is relevant to the aerial victories discussed in section 2. It is not especially relevant only to Noltenius individually. To quote MOS:SEEALSO, "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant...' Thus this See also is properly placed.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
7. Noltenius' name is not used in section 2 until the third paragraph. A reader might wonder who "he" is.
   1. Remedied.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
8. The citation for the quotation paragraph has been duplicated. The second one should be removed.
   1. Removed the first one.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
9. Section 2 isn't especially large but it has about a dozen short paragraphs which are like bullet points without the bullets. Again, a lack of narrative co-ordination and flow which needs attention and revision.
   1. I organize my paragraphs around a central point.
   2. First paragraph covers Noltenious' entry into aviation.
   3. Second para is coverage of his airplane.
   4. Third para covers flying weather.
   5. Fourth para is the quotation.
   6. Fifth para is his reaction to his victory in quotation.
   7. You made a good call on paras 6 and 7. I am combining them, as their fcus is on the start of his victory record.
   8. Para 7: denial of claims.
   9. Para 8: the booby trapped balloon.
   10. As the next two paras are similar, I combined them.
   11. Changed last para to reflect that war stopped all awards of the Pour le Merite.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
10. The next day, another double claim--and again the decision went against Noltenius. Outraged, he requested transfer to another squadron. This is one of the worst examples of WP:TONE, thus justifying the cleanup banner. Frankly, it reads like a football match report in a tabloid newspaper.
    1. I dropped "outraged" for "disgruntled"—which I took from the source.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
11. Why use -- instead of emdash or endash?
    1. Sheer ineptitude. I meant to replace them before submission.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
12. Does "lightly wounded" mean "slightly wounded"? How, if known?
    1. This seems like some unneeded hairsplitting to me, as they are synonymous terms. The source says a ricocheting bullet penetrated his clothing far enough to burn his skin. Make of it what you will.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
13. "He was also shot down" sounds like this was a minor mishap compared with what went before.
    1. Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
14. "Flying Circus" is an ambiguous term.
    1. Disambiguated.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
15. "He scored thrice" sounds like he was playing football and "thrice" is nowadays an archaic term.
    1. Substituted"three times".Georgejdorner (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
16. What does "singleton" mean in this context?
    1. Replaced with "singlehanded".Georgejdorner (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
17. Again reading like a sports commentary: "closed out his career as an ace-his 21st and last credited victory". It sounds like a sportsperson winning his last match, not a fighter pilot killing someone. The hyphen is wrongly used and should be replaced by an endash, spaced apart from the words.
    1. Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
18. On 8 November, he received the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern. His twentieth victory qualified him for the Pour le Mérite, but the Armistice three days later scotched his award. Scotched!? How disappointing for him. From what perspective has this been written?
    1. Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
19. He returned to Germany in 1933, the very year that the Nazis came to power. The article should include something about his political views as he must have been a Nazi sympathiser at least.
    1. I decline to invent his political views. They are not given in source. His reason for returning to his homeland are also not given.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
20. The final section consists of a single-sentence paragraph, which is deprecated so this statement needs to be merged into the previous paragraph.
    1. This sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with the para preceding it. There is no reason to jam this sentence willy-nilly where it does not belong. If I had been certain that the Cross and Cockade papers were the same as were supplied to construct the unit history, I would have placed the sentence there. As it is, the publication is a subject unto itself.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
21. The sources and references sections are mixed up: citations are references and books are sources.
    1. Wow. Seems like whatever titles I use for these sections, some other editor has an objection. Okay, let's have it your way.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
22. Why has Above the Lines got two ISBNs? If there are two editions, they need to be listed separately.
    1. Deleted 10 digit version.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
23. Categories should be alpha-sorted.
    1. Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The basic criteria that I use in reviews are below and I've marked them to show where the problems lie:

1. GACR#1a. Well written: the prose is clear, concise and understandable.
2. GACR#1a. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
8. GACR#2a. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
9. GACR#2b. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. GACR#2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources.
11. GACR#2b. All quotations are cited and their usage complies with MOS guidelines.
12. GACR#2c. No original research.
13. GACR#2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. GACR#3. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. GACR#4. Neutral (NPOV).
16. GACR#5. Stable.
17. GACR#6a. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.
18. GACR#6b. Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate captions.

This article is start-class only. It needs a considerable amount of work to improve the tone and grammar. The lead is inadequate and the layout with its short paragraphs is poor. Apart from the tone, the worst issue is the near lack of a narrative flow because the whole thing is just a set of points, one after the other like a list. It should never have been nominated for GA because it is nowhere near the required standard but I hope the review points can be put to good use and that the article is improved. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Having rewritten the article to answer the reviewer's concerns, I must append a note about invention of fact for the sake of "narrative flow". As I lack mind-reading abilities, I fail to see which off-source facts the reviewer wants dragged in. I am more interested in accuracy then rhetorical flourishes.

I believe my comments above illustrate that the reviewer has a very poor sense of paragraphing. I will admit that the cheeky tone adopted by British aviation historians does tend to rub off on me. Many thanks for the call on it. I do not intend to sound offhandedly brutal about human deaths and suffering.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)