Jump to content

Talk:Dicta Boelcke/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 19:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Giving this one a look. —Ed!(talk) 19:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Not Yet
    • Lead: "Because of his success in aerial combat and analytic mind, he was tasked with writing a pamphlet on aerial tactics." -- tasked by whom?
    • "and have become a mainstay for air combat training for American, German, Dutch, Norwegian, Turkish, Italian, and Greek fighter pilots." -- I'd imagine here you're saying that the national militaries of each of these nations has adopted some form of evolution of this doctrine. If so, it would be good to more specifically link to their air forces or whichever military units you're talking about here.
    • Is the section of rules a direct quote? If so it might be good to indent it or put it in a block quote box so we know this is verbatim, and not a subsequent interpretation, which is helpful because we're talking about a specific document.
    • "There are various versions of the Dicta." -- Why? Did he write several copies and variate them? Did the document go through revisions before coming to its final form? This should be made clear in the article.
    • I have been unable to discover why the variation in versions. It may have been he wrote more than one draft. It may be an artifact of translation. The sources don't say.Georgejdorner (talk)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    No problems now, but I would say that the comments mentioned here merit a lot of expansion of the article and some substantial additional sourcing would need to come through that.
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Not Yet
    • "The author" section: It would probably be good to add an establishing paragraph on the state of aerial warfare here. Important things to include: The airplane had been invented only a few years before, the tools of air combat were very rudimentary. Are there any rules whatsoever established by any of the militaries operating aircraft? That would help set up that this was the first real systematic look at how to perform air combat.
    • Isn't it clear that if Boelcke was the first to develop these tactics, no one preceded him? And why should there be a back story? I fail to see any real relevance in connection with this document. The militaries of the world could have muddled along for a century before aerial tactics, or it could have occurred ten minutes after the Wright brothers flew. It makes no difference to the Dicta.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It makes sense given the context of the document being created and establishing its notability. Again I'll refer to Patton's Speech to the Third Army; certainly the set-up has a great role to play in understanding the motivation behind the document and why, in subsequent context, it has endured in history and has the impact it did. —Ed!(talk) 00:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have looked at Patton's speech. I don't see 13 years of backstory there. It certainly does not insist on giving the origin of tanks as part of his past. There's nothing about Patton's armored career background. In fact, Patton's backstory is about the same length as Boelcke's in the Dicta article--a few months.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was his thought process in developing this document? Any early ideas or concepts that were important to him? Anything that didn't make it in but that he emphasized? A section on the process is definitely necessary.
    • His diary records his actions, not his thoughts. IMO, it is dubious he had any idle time for contemplation. From the time he became an ace until he wrote the Dicta was not quite a very busy six months.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I summarized his experiences that led to his writing the Dicta. I found naught on his thought process.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Legacy" section: I see the need for a lot of expansion here. Talk about the doctrine that the other nations created themselves at the time, and how it differed from this one? Also, as air warfare doctrine evolved, these principles likely came along and were inspiring additional policies. Which ones did it inspire? Which militaries took this document and evolved it in different directions? Which ones use some of the fundamentals still today? There's a lot to be said there and it definitely should be included in this article. You mention generally that some nations have ideas that evolved from this, which ideas are we talking about for each military?
    • Although not in the sources, in my recollection, aerial tactics--and the Dicta--were pretty much forgotten following WWI's end. Some surviving German pilots did carry the tactical doctrine forward to the Luftwaffe. The Spanish Civil War led to the rediscovery of successful fighter tactics per the Dicta. Mind you, this is all from memory, and must be classified OR. I don't know of any reliable sources to prove this.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Not Yet
    • "Oswald Boelcke was the first effective warrior with an airplane, as he was one of the original German pilots successful in air-to-air combat." -- Definitely non-neutral and needs a bit more verifiable detail as well as a rewording.
    • How effective was Boelcke? He became the war's leading ace in March 1916. By the time of his death in October, his 40 victories more than doubled the score of any other ace of the war. So he was effective, but how much of this should carry over to this article? Which is to say, you have a point, but what to carry over as proof?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Boelcke was a pilot whose skill in the aircraft led to prominent early success. He became the war's leading ace in March 1916. By the time of his death in October, his 40 victories more than doubled the score of any other ace of the war." Something og that nature, it's definitely clear he's a thought leader in this area but just a matter of that wording. —Ed!(talk) 00:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally, the term "enemy" is discouraged from use in articles because it's non-neutral? What opponents was he successful against? What was their doctrine, or did they lack coordinated doctrine? That would definitely help explain some of the need for this document's creation or what led to his success enough to be an authority tasked to write this.
  5. It is stable:
    Pass No problems there.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Not yet Two images here tagged to appropriate copyrights.
    • His photo might be better at the top of the article. As the author, it's probably going to be the most important image.
    • What's the use for the second image? Seems like a general history image of the aircraft but not necessarily relevant here. Also when it is placed on the left as it is, it jumbles the list a little.
    • Is there any chance for some diagrams of maneuvers or things that illustrate the list itself?
  7. Other: Dab links, dup links, external links tools show no problems. Copyvio tool returns yellow, likely because of the use of quotes in the body of the article.
    On Hold I do see potential for the article for sure, but I do think it'll need some pretty substantial additions around the context of the document and what specifically its impacts have been in modern aerial warfare. Holding pending some of your thoughts on these. —Ed!(talk) 20:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrections/emendments to date. Will followup on noted items.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Much appreciated for your work so far! —Ed!(talk) 00:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all for now. Back to research/revision.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So I think you've done a pretty good job expanding here! Based on this, I think the article has all that it needs for GA. Going to Pass now. Thanks for your work on it! —Ed!(talk) 01:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dicta_Boelcke/GA1&oldid=879890884"