Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)/archive1

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment‎ | Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)

edit
Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think that after the peer review and GA review most of the teething problems have been eliminated. I believe to have included most if not all of the publications available on Waldmann. Thanks for your feedback. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • I don't think you need to describe the Knight's Cross in the lead, just note that it's Germany's highest military decoration.
      • This had been requested in a FAC class review before. Ican't recall which one at the moment. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also don't think you need to explain what a victory is. It should be discussed in the prose, but in the lead just a link to flying ace will suffice.
      • Exactly this had been requested in the peer review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm. I disagree, as I think the lead should be reserved for a general summary and context like that should be in the body. Here's a compromise: make both a footnote. —Ed!(talk) 18:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let's see what other reviewers say. The lead of Werner Mölders was the result of a FAC review, reflecting the layout here. I want to keep it for now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • G'day, I also think it is a bit awkward. What about something like "Waldmann received the award after he had shot down 85 enemy aircraft"? I think that that would be clear enough for the lay reader. Either that, or a footnote as Ed suggests. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Childhood: "Easter 1932 he transferred..." -- you mean on Easter he transferred. Also, it's sort of strange to use the holiday as a reference, could you include the actual date?
      • I had received that comment before and I think I now understand the reason. In German Easter refers to a period around Easter Sunday not just one specific Sunday. The exact day is not defined in the sources. On Easter would give a precission the sources do not provide. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • G'day, MisterBee, I tweaked this to "Over Easter in 1932". Does this work for you? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Waldmann was assigned to the Braunschweigischen Maschinenbausanstalt (BMA)." -- Could you add a translation for this?
    • "he was called to arms" -- this isn't very encyclopedic language.
    • "Eight days later his training group returns because Markersdorf was overcrowded." -- This sentence confuses me. There's at least a tense problem here.
    • World War II: "(non-commissioned officer similar in rank to Sergeant)" -- this might be better as a footnote.
    • "Waldmann had made haste and received the only clearance for takeoff at 17.55" Standard MOS on time is "17:55" I believe. Also, note the time zone if possible.
      • partially done time zone not known. I can only assume that it was German time the Wehrmacht operated on German time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Battle of Normandy: repetition here: "The Gruppe was tasked with ground support missions. Flying a ground support mission against the Allied invasion forces"
    • You use the term "enemy" here, which is not neutral language. "Allied" is preferable.
    • I've done some work on flying aces too, though none with German pilots. Generally a table like this one is extremely useful to note victories. Is it possible to add one here?
      • Yes, the info is published by Bracke. If desired I could add it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would prefer it. You don't have to include everything if it isn't known, but a section about victories and a little about his strategy for getting them goes a long way. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I could do something like this. Would this work? Note: I had once tried to include a table of claims in the Hans-Joachim Marseille article and it did not go well with the reviewers. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ping me if it's brought up in any future reviews for this article. There isn't a policy reason to oppose based on the presence of the table. —Ed!(talk) 22:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will check back. —Ed!(talk) 17:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The addition of the graph was the last comment I had. Excellent work. —Ed!(talk) 12:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • in the lead, I think something is missing here: "before converting to the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter later 1944" (perhaps "in late 1944"?);
  • "He was the second son of Ludwig Waldmann, a bank manager, and his wife Maria Waldmann" --> "He was the second son of Ludwig Waldmann, a bank manager, and his wife Maria" (probably no need to repeat the surname);
  • I found this sentence a little awkward: "In parallel to his schooling starting with the outbreak of World War II Waldmann and his fellow students were forced into compulsory labor service";
  • "At Ettingshausen he was instructed in formation flying and aerobatics" --> "At Ettingshausen he received instruction in formation flying and aerobatics";
  • I wonder about splitting the sentence that begins with: "After completing his A/B flight training at Markersdorf in August 1941..."
  • tense issue here: "For the next few days, he is sent back and forth until he finally";
  • there is probably no need to reiterate the ranks of the individuals here: "Oberleutnant Grünberg's Schwarm took off first followed by Oberleutnant Stehle's Schwarm" as they have already been introduced in the previous sentence (please look for other instances of this);
  • is something missing here: "came down near the railroad tracks Hamburg-Berlin"?
  • passive voice: "Missing at first were Staffelkapitän Hans Waldmann and Oberfähnrich Günter Schrey".
  • please check for overlink. The duplicate link checker tool identifies quite a few: Staffelkapitan; P-51 Mustang; Gruppenkommandeur; Leutnant; Schwarm;
  • please check for English variation. I found "honour" and "metres" (British English), but also "honors" and "labor" (US English);
  • check for apostrophe errors. For instance, "spoted a formation of B-24's after" (there shouldn't be an apostrophe in B-24's);
  • time format error: "13 November 1940 at 9.17". Per WP:MOSTIME times should use colons and either display as 24 hour time, or use am or pm designations. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action required).
    • External links check out [2] (no action required).
    • Images lack Alt Text [3] so you might consider adding it (not and ACR requirement though - suggestion only).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
    • The Earwig Tool found no issues with copyright violation [4] (no action required).
    • Some duplicate links which need to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • Braunschweig
      • Staffelführer
      • P-51 Mustang
      • Leutnant
      • Schwarm
      • Bf-109G
    • I agree with Ed's concerns about describing what a "victory" is in the lead. The lead should be a summary only, so doesn't require this detail. I note that an explaination was suggested in the peer review but I don't see why this is required in the lead. Perhaps move it to the body of the text. I'm not too fused about the description of the Knight's Cross - it seems a little wordy but it seems to work, although I note that this information is not included in the body of the text with a refence so it needs a citation.
    • "...Luftwaffe of the Third Reich in 1940...", Third Reich seems a little redundant to me.
      • Hm, how do you discriminate from todays Luftwaffe/Bundesluftwaffe? It is still called the Luftwaffe in every day language MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that the lead provides the dates of his service you have already done this in my opinion. As such it doesn't seem necessary but I'm not going to oppose on the basis of this so if you feel it is necessary I'm happy to move on. Anotherclown (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems awkward to me: "... applied for an officer's career in the Luftwaffe for the first time in 1938." Consider instead "...applied for a career as an officer in the Luftwaffe for the first time in 1938."
    • Multiple issues here in my opinion: "...he was called to arms beginning his 12 weeks military basic training with Fliegerausbildungsregiment 72 (flight training regiment) at Fels am Wagram in Austria in July 1940." Specifically "called to arms" is too informal, consider "called up" or some similar. Also it should probably be "12-week military basic training" (as its an adjective).
    • Parts of the article seem unusally detailed. In particular is it really relevant exactly what time the subject logged his first solo flight or what markings the aircraft had at the time? I'm not going to oppose on the basis of this but it seems a little distracting to me. I suggest removing it but am happy to see if other reviewers have an opinion on this before/if it is to be actioned.
    • Not sure about the capitalisation for some of the translations, I'm not 100% on the policy on this one but I think they should probably be in caps as they are still proper nouns. For instance "Fliegerausbildungsregiment 72 (flight training regiment)" should probably be "Fliegerausbildungsregiment 72 (72nd Flight Training Regiment)" and "Jagdfliegerschule 6 (6th fighter pilot school)" should probably be "Jagdfliegerschule 6 (6th Fighter Pilot School)" or something similar. There are a few others like this throughout the article.
    • "...before transferring to the front was held in...", consider "...before transferring to the front was completed in..." instead.
    • This is poorly worded: "This 85th aerial victory was actually an Herausschuss (separation shot)—a severely damaged heavy bomber forced to separate from his combat box which counted as an aerial victory." Consider instead: "This victory, his 85th, was actually a Herausschuss (separation shot)—a severely damaged heavy bomber forced to separate from his combat box which counted as an aerial victory."
    • Incorrect italics here: "Gruppenkommandeur (group commander) Major Gerhard Barkhorn was ordered...". "Major" is English hence should not be in italics.
      • I am using the link to the Major of Germany article here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Its still written in English so italics are not required, see MOS:FOREIGN. Only foreign language terms are italicised. Anotherclown (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Language here is repetitive: "The Invasion of Normandy, which started on the early morning of 6 June 1944, was already in full swing by the time Waldmann's Staffel arrived in France. The Western Allies were already breaking out of Normandy in what was codenamed Operation Cobra." Specifically "already" twice.
    • This is awkward to me: "He was credited with the destruction of numerous trucks on a number of these ground support missions in the timeframe of 2 to 5 August 1944." Consider instead: "He was credited with the destruction of numerous trucks during ground support missions over the period of 2–5 August 1944."
    • "...after 45 minutes of flight time..." → "...after 45 minutes flying time..."
    • Repetitive: "Waldmann attacked and with his first attacking pass...", consider instead "Waldmann attacked and with his first pass..."
    • Also repetitive: "against inbound Anglo-American heavy bombers. The Anglo-American attack..."
    • Some inconsistency in the presentation of German ranks. Often you include the English translation in brackets, but in other places you don't, or in one instance you put it in a footnote. Probably best to be consistent. I note MOS:FOREIGN suggests you should provide the translation in brackets.
      • My intend is to provide the translation on first occurance only. I believe to have done this where the semantical and language translation are in sync. This is not allways the case, see Unteroffizier. An earlier comment suggest to put the discrepancy info as a footnote. I revoked my ealier change, keeping the info in brackets. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Major Erich Rudorffer, Gruppenkommandeur of the I./JG 7", issue here is that you wikilink major, but you have already used the term above. If you intend on wikilink it, it should be done at first use.
    • This seems a strange construction to me: "Weihs saved his life by bailing out with his parachute and came down near the Hamburg-Berlin railroad tracks." Consider instead wording it more simply as: "Weihs bailed out, coming down near the Hamburg-Berlin railroad tracks."
    • "Staffelkapitän Hans Waldmann and Oberfähnrich Günter Schrey...", should just be "Waldmann and Oberfähnrich Günter Schrey..." removing rank and first name IAW WP:SURNAME.
    • I don't understand this entire section I'm afraid: "Four minutes into the flight, roughly 50 kilometres (31 mi) and less than 800 metres (2,600 ft) of altitude, Weihs' aircraft experienced a heavy blow from below, putting the aircraft into an unrecoverable spin. Weihs saved his life by bailing out with his parachute and came down near the Hamburg-Berlin railroad tracks. The airfield at Kaltenkirchen was immediately informed. Staffelkapitän Hans Waldmann and Oberfähnrich Günter Schrey were missing at first. Waldmann's body was recovered the next day near Schwarzenbek, roughly 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) away from the crash site of his Me 262. Apparently he had managed to bail out but failed to deploy his parachute on time. The injuries sustained during the crash with Weihs' aircraft may have already been fatal. The recovery party found Waldmann with his upper forehead smashed.[27] Oberfähnrich Günter Schrey was also found dead. He had bailed out with his parachute, but his body was found riddled by machine gun bullets." In the lead you wrote that Waldmann was killed in a mid-air collision so I assume this is what you are describing here but it really isn't clear.
      • Partially done. I believe this could still be worded better. For instance: "Four minutes into the flight, having travelled roughly 50 kilometres (31 mi) and flying at less than 800 metres (2,600 ft) above the ground, Weihs' aircraft experienced a heavy blow from below, putting it into an unrecoverable spin. Waldmann had collided with Weihs' Me 262." Consider instead: "Four minutes into the flight, having travelled roughly 50 kilometres (31 mi) and flying at less than 800 metres (2,600 ft) above the ground, Weihs' aircraft experienced a heavy blow from below after Waldmann collided with him, putting it into an unrecoverable spin." Or something similar. Anotherclown (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Oberfähnrich Günter Schrey was also found dead...", should just be "Schrey was also found dead..." removing rank and first name following formal introduction as first use per WP:SURNAME.
    • "A number of wreath...", should be a plural here.
    • In the refences terms like "Ltd" or "Limited" should be removed from the publishers field per Template:Cite_book#Publisher.
    • I admit to not knowing the policy here but I'm uncomfortable with the use of German language in the bibliography. Surely the entries (e.g. title etc) of the works can be translated into English (given you have used the information to write an article in English I'm assuming you can read German)? Obviously the works themselves are in German (from your use of "in German" template - which seems acceptable to me - and I have no problem assuming good faith as to their content) but not many of our readers are likely to actually be able to read German. I'm happy to be corrected about this point - if I'm wrong I'll strike the comment. Anotherclown (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I broke out some of the German terms into a translation section. This was considered good practice on the Ernst Lindemann article during FAC review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries - makes sense (although you should probably use the normal rules of capitalisation in this list). Regardless it misses the point of my cmt above. Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear I'm talking about the use of German in the reference section. IMO these probably should be translated into English. Anotherclown (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Overall the article has advanced quite nicely but I am still concerned about this and would like to have this clarified. Is the use of German language correct here? Happy for any knowledgable editor to tell my I'm wrong. Also at least two other outstanding points above. Could these also be addressed pls? Anotherclown (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hm, at least it was never flagged before, even during FAC reviews. How can we verify what good practice is? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've posted a request for assistance on the MILHIST talkpage. Hopefully someone actually knows and can give us some advice. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, the {{cite book}} template has a "trans_title=" parameter that could be used. Adding that sort of information would probably improve a reader's ability to find a book. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a first attempt. Have a look if it is satisfactory now MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that - that seems a good solution to me. I've tweaked it to use title case though. As all my points have now been actioned I have added my support. Anotherclown (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Was just going to give this a quick scan but ended up copyediting throughout (which I think has addressed one or two points from the guys above) so basically happy with the prose now.
  • I share Anotherclown's confusion re. the final section; specifically we need clear explanation that Waldman collided with someone (Weih or Schrey presumably, but who and how?). This assumes that the wording in the lead is correct, of course, and he definitely did collide with someone; if it's uncertain then you need to qualify the lead with "possibly" or "probably" (whatever most accurately reflects the sources) as well as providing the details in the last section.
    • I tweaked the text a little. See if it works now please MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from that, detail looks okay but he seems to have rung up 80-odd victories on the Eastern Front without any elaboration, so you may want to flesh that out a bit.
  • Structure looks fine; I'll take as read other reviewers' comments on referencing and images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Hans_Waldmann_(fighter_pilot)/archive1&oldid=1138360595"