Talk:Günther Specht/Archive 1

Archive 1

copyvios

Page copied rom the website "Aces of the Luftwaffe" page. Dapi89 (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Create new clean article at Talk:Günther Specht/Temp. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Asch

There's no place called Asch in Belgium... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.139.52 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A few further points to consider

As per the request on my talkpage, I have the following points to consider before taking to GAN or ACR:

• I'd suggest getting the article copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, they also do very good work;-- Done--Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• check the style of your citations, some of them have commas before the brackets (e.g. "Caldwell & Muller, (2007) p. 182"), but others have the commas after the brackets (e.g. "Weal (2006), p. 26) and some have both (e.g. "Obermaier, (1989), p. 208"). I think the most common style is commas after the brackets, but whatever you choose it needs to be consistent;

 Done

• in your References list some of your accessdates have different formats, e.g. "Retrieved 2010-05-19", while others are "Retrieved 17 May 2010". These need to be consistent;

 Done

• in the References section there is a problem with the html mark up for the Obermaier source which is showing the bare url, rather than embedding it in the title. I think it has to do with the German language template, but I am unsure how to fix it, sorry;

 Done

• Citation # 32 "Scherzer (2001), p. 711" - this needs to be checked. The References section has a Patzwell and Scherzer 2001 work, and a Scherzer & Scherzer (2007) work, but no Scherzer (2001) work. Can you please check which it should be and adjust the citation accordingly?;

 Done

• I'd suggest not having the References in small font like that as it is a bit hard to read (fine for my eyes, but some readers with less than 20/20 vision might complain);

 Done

• I'd suggest not including the web citations in the References section like you have, it is generally considered correct to link them directly in the Notes section/citations with the {{cite web}} template and just using the References section for books and journals;
• where you have citations that have the same author and year (e.g. "Weal-b (1999), p. 36") I think this needs to be tweaked slightly. I've not seen it done quite this way. The way I've seen it done is "Weal (1999b), p. 36"). Then in the References it would appear like this: "Weal, John (1999b). Bf 109 F/G/K Aces of the Western Front. Osprey Publishing. pp. 96. ISBN 9781855329058." This makes it quite clear which one is which in the Refs section;

 Done

• if you can find the details, location information for the publishers should be added to the References (I understand that this isn't always available, though, so it is not necessarily a requirement at GAN or ACR);
• Citation # 28 "Manrho & Pütz, (2004) p. 149" : this book does not appear to be listed in the References section. Can you please add it in?

 Done

Anyway, looks good so far. Well done. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. Apart from born on 13 November 1914 in Frankenstein there is nothing at all on his early life.
2. Also what makes http://www.ww2awards.com a reliable site ?
3. Up until the Single-engine fighters section its not clearwhat type of aircraft he was flying.

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Günther Specht/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   If you're going to use German terms please follow German capitalization rules for nouns like Viermot, Staffel, etc.  Done

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Page numbers are not needed for references.  Done

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   if: Need to explain what II./JG 11 and 5./JG 11 mean when they first appear. Probably best done as a note. Explain Geschwaderkommodore.  Done

   This is currently done in the main body, but not in the lead. Please explain the terms there and delete the links and explanations in the main body to avoid duplication and overlinking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Done

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: