Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–45)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945))
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.

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

edit
Nominator(s):   Perseus 71 talk
Toolbox

This article was recently promoted to GA class. It had also undergone a Peer Review recently.

A1 - I believe that the article has sizable number of primary references with a uniform style of citation. All the major facts have been appropriately referenced.

A2 - I believe that this article covers all aspects of organization of Luftwaffe during WWII without going into the details of the history of the organization. There are two areas of this article which some have questioned if pertain to core topic. These are

  • Finger Four Formation
  • Aircraft Identification markings.

I personally feel that both of these are pertinent to the core topic as the finger four was an integral part of the Staffel hierarchy. The Identification markings were closely tied to Groups and Wing hierarchy. But I am open to other viewpoints. If there is a consensus on removing those then I am willing to do so.

A3 & A4 - This article has already underwent a major CopyEd by one of the editors from WP:GoCE. Hence the headings and hierarchy has been validated.

A5 - There are plenty of visual aids such as photos as well as an Org Chart.

I believe together these points make this article a candidate for A Class.   Perseus 71 talk 18:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • there are no dab links, and ext links all work (no action required);
    • alt text could be added to the images, although it is not a requirement (suggestion only);
Only two images do not have Alt text. The reason is, they are part of Template:Infobox military unit. The template does not support Alt Text from what I tried to find.   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the mark up in the infobox so that the alt text will show with the two images in the infobox. Can you please check the other images, because they don't appear to have alt text to me? This tool indicates that they do not: [1]. To get it to turn on you need to have the |alt= parameter. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have added Alt text to all the images.   Perseus 71 talk 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:DornierC-Legion.jpg needs a non-free media rationale for this article if it is being used under a claim of "fair use" as it appears on the image description page;
 Done
    • all other images (apart from the one above) appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
    • there is some issues surrounding the use of hyphens and endashes, for instance in the Luftwaffe and anti-aircraft units section you have "twenty–seven 20 mm Anti–Aircraft guns", per WP:DASH these should not be endashes but should just be normal hyphens;
I have normal hyphen at the said point not – in the "Luftwaffe anti-aircraft units" section. Can you please let me konw if I am looking in wrong place ?
I have fixed all the ones I can see. They should be fine now. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • per above "re–designated" should be "re-designated";
 Done All the re-designated ones are converted.   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • however, where you have used hyphens like this "Jagdgeschwader (JG) - a day fighter..." the hyphen should either be a spaced endash, or an unspaced emdash per WP:DASH;
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have made honest effort to convert all the improper nouns. Kindly let me know if I missed any or assumed incorrectly.   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Non day fighter Units section there is a non sentence at the start "in 1941", I think this should be removed;
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Non day fighter Units section, in the heading the word "Units" should not be capitalised as such, it should be "units" as per the section above it "Day fighter units"'
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of Luftwaffe Air Units I think should be "List of Luftwaffe air units";
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the See also section there is an entry that is not wikilinked" "Stab (Luftwaffe designation)" - this should be wikilinked or if it doesn't exist, removed;
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Notes and Citations section for page ranges sometimes you use the singular "p." then sometimes "pp." (for instance "Denis and Lepage, (2009) p. 48-50" but then "Denis and Lepage, (2009) pp. 18,19,48–50";
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Notes and Citations section I think there need to be some spaces inserted between the page numbers (e.g. in Citation # 15: "United States War Dept. (1995) p. 15,591" - this looks like it is page number fifteen thousand five hundred and ninety-one). Is it meant to be that, or is it meant to be page fifteen and page five hundred and ninety-one?
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation # 48 "Mitcham, (2007-b) pp.323", if this is a single page, it should probably just be "p. 323";
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • some of the citations have a comma before the year in brackets, but others don't, (e.g. "Stedman & Chappell (2002) p. 5 " and "Williamson & Andrew (2003) p. 13–15" but then "Denis and Lepage, (2009) pp. 18,19,48–50" and "Ruffner, (1990) pp. 3,6–11, 14";
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • most of the citations have years in brackets, but this one doesn't "Mayer & Taylor, p. 95";
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the References section you have listed a source by "Taylor, Alan; Percivale, John and Mayer, Sydney" however, in the Citations it is (I think) listed as "Mayer & Taylor, p. 95", I think the short citation needs to be consistent with the long, so it should be "Taylor, Percivale & Mayer, (1974), p. 95";
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the References section, "Bickers" should come before "Boog" alphabetically;
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the References section, in the titles the year ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH.
 Done   Perseus 71 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section "List of Luftwaffe air units" gives the impression that this is more or less complete list of all the air units. However all the Sturzkampfgeschwader, Zerstörergeschwader, Schlachtgeschwader, Transportgeschwader, and some more are missing. I feel that it should either be complete or removed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I myself was in two minds over those lists as I didn't feel they added much to the core organization. I have removed those lists as a result.   Perseus 71 talk 23:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments: (Sorry I missed these before)
    • (see comment below also) citation # 13 has "Jean-Denis, G.G. Lepage", however other ones such as # 1 have "Denis and Lepage" these should be consistent;
 Done  Perseus 71 talk 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the References section you have "Jean, Denis; Lepage, G.G" for the author of a work. This is saying that that the surname is Jean, however, in your short citations you have "Denis and Lepage" showing it as if Denis is the surname. From what I can find on Google books it appears that it is actually the name of one person, i.e his first name is Jean-Denis and his surname is "Lepage". If this is so you will need ot change all of the Denis & Lepage citations to just "Lepage". Can you clarify which is the surname please? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have changed to just Lepage as the last name for the author. Thanks pointing that out. I had confusion myself when I ran across that name originally.   Perseus 71 talk 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • I have made a few edits (please confirm they haven't misrepresented your intent);
I was following your edits. I think those are valid have no issue.   Perseus 71 talk 03:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation check tool reveals multiple references that need to be consolidated (i.e. named refs), can these please be taken care of?
I am afraid I don't know what tool it is or why its reporting so. From my side I have extensively followed WP:refname. So if I am citing same page of a book, the named reference would repeat. Case to the point "Williamson & Andrew, (2003) pp. 3–5" is cited in four places. Is this what the tool is picking up ? If not and there is a different issue, then I'll be happy to correct it.   Perseus 71 talk 03:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The citation check tool is part of the edit function. To accesses it click 'edit' at the top of the article, then 'cite', then 'error check', a box will appear, select all 3 check boxes and click 'check' - this will summarize the issues. I think what might have occurred in this case is that you have just used the same name for a ref in a few places - which isn't really an issue (but it 'creates' an error with the check tool). If this is the case then I will strike this issue as it is not important... Anotherclown (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done or so I think. As of now, the only reference it has issue with is "Lepage, (2009) pp. 48–50". I don't know what beef it has with this one. I have it named once and used several times. Rest seem to be fixed. BTW I am using Wiki Beta and hence the Cite Button was not visible on my Edit Toolbar before. Let me know if this fixes the issue ?  Perseus 71 talk 18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that seems to have done the trick. Moving to support now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a Luftgau or a Luftgaue, you seem to use both in the same paragraph (or is this the plural and the singular form of the word?);
Luftgaue (Air Districts) is a plural of Luftgau (Air District).   Perseus 71 talk 03:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentence below the table in the 'Luftflotte' section seems like a 'note' more than a paragraph of its own: "By D-Day in June 1944, Luftflotte 3, had units under it, scattered all over France. X. Fliegerkorps was transferred from Greece to Angers, France in March 1944. It acquired the assets of Fliegerführer Atlantik.[26]" Could it perhaps be incorporated into the table with its own cell (minor nitpick I know - just a suggestion)?  Done
  • The last paragraph in the 'Gruppe' section is uncited; and  Done
  • IMO the aircraft markings section is appropriate for the article and should be kept (no action required).

Overall, this is a very good article and intend to support when these comments are dealt with. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support I think that this very detailed and well written article meets the A class criteria. I do have some suggestions for further improvements though:
    • As the 'engagements' and 'aircraft flown' sections of the infobox would be overwhelming if they were completely listed, I'd strongly suggest that these sections be left blank. The current 'engagements' section excludes the entire Eastern Front campaign and many other key campaigns and the list of aircraft flown is missing a few important aircraft.
When I was deciding on infobox template, I had researched several articles on air-forces in this regard. Most of the articles do provide both pieces of information. Key thing is, Engagement section focuses only on major conflicts. I have added Easter Front. (Don't know how I forgot. No excuse). As to the aircraft, I have made an honest attempt to cover all Operational aircraft. If I missed any, please do let me know and I will add the same.   Perseus 71 talk 03:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'Air Combat Tactics "Finger-four" formation' seems out of place. I'd suggest that it be placed in the 'Tactical level – Geschwader, Gruppe and Staffel' section Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Good point. Fits in perfectly.   Perseus 71 talk 03:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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/Organization_of_the_Luftwaffe_(1933–45)&oldid=1143866059"