Jump to content

Talk:Friedrich Noltenius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Friedrich T. Noltenius)

Warranted factual

[edit]

As of this iteration, all info has been footnoted to refer to source. However, this article still has untapped resources:

Fokker D.VII Aces of World War I

Richthofen's Circus: Jagdgeschwader Nr 1

Georgejdorner (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I finally got around to using them. Warranty back in force.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friedrich T. Noltenius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Friedrich Noltenius/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

GAFAIL

[edit]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  14. "Flying Circus" is an ambiguous term.
    1. Disambiguated.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  16. What does "singleton" mean in this context?
    1. Replaced with "singlehanded".Georgejdorner (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  23. Categories should be alpha-sorted.
    1. Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

B class review

[edit]

B class. I made some minor corrections, which you can see in the article's edit comments. Djmaschek (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Friedrich Noltenius/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 11:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will review in the next few days. Zawed (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it took me a bit longer than I thought to get here...comments as follows:

Infobox

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • I would mention him serving in the artillery initially before transferring to the Luftstreitkräfte (and when he transferred, he seemed to have accumulated victories quite quickly given he only started flying fighters in July 1918).
  • combat career began with a horrifying incident: his "combat" career arguably started with his service in the army, suggest rephrasing.
    • So a peacetime soldier's combat career begins with his/her enlistment?
      • No, I was referring to his war service with the artillery. We don't know one way or the other whether he came under fire or not (but he did get Iron Crosses and was wounded) before his aviation career. Zawed (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've made a good call here, but for the wrong reason. See above query.
    • Your combat career begins when you come under fire and/or start shooting at an enemy. Speaking from personal history, my combat career began over six years into my service.
    • I have inserted the term "aerial" to clarify text, as part of the rewrite.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noltenius managed to begin shooting down enemy airplanes: the "managed" does not sit well with me; it implies some sort of struggle. I would suggest just referring to his first confirmed victory, e.g. Noltenius shot down his first confirmed enemy aircraft on 10 August 1918...
  • Only war's end: "Only the war's end..."?

Early life

[edit]

Aerial service

[edit]
  • transferred to flying service... recite the official name of the service (presumably Luftstreitkräfte?), plus translation of same. The infobox should reflect this as well.
  • Because we have a date for him starting aviation training that is well after the date of the awards, I think it is OK to move their mention into the previous section to follow the mention of the wounding (it keeps everything chronological). Does the source say that nor is it known which branch of service or is that something you added because it is not explicitly stated? Either way, I think just keeping it factual, i.e. that he received the awards, is preferable to introducing the potential ambiguity.
  • Noltenius began aviation training on 3 November 1917. what's the difference between aviation training (this sentence) and flight training (following sentence)
  • After only a brief... delete only, it is redundant given the use of "brief"
  • The heading "First kill" is inappropriate - presumably it is only Noltenius' opinion that it was his first kill. His combat claim could have rightfully been denied.
  • Flying in this killing weather Noltenius found himself one of three German pilots attacking a French Breguet 14 on the 18th. Not crazy about the phrasing here, particularly killing weather/18th. Suggest "Two days later, flying in these conditions, Noltenius found himself one of three German pilots attacking a French Breguet 14.}}
  • ...enemy observation balloon. The gasbag was too wet... Suggest combining these sentences, e.g. "...enemy observation balloon but it was too wet..."
  • His second win, ten days later,...: the "win" language is inappropriate and contributes to an unfavourable "game" analogy for aerial warfare. I suggest simply deleting it here, it is pretty clear, given the previous sentence, that "the second" it is referring to a victory
  • scoring his fifth and sixth triumphs. If the source supports it, suggest "...scoring his fifth and sixth triumphs that day", which I think it is what is intended? The present wording implies that he may have been an ace earlier.
  • The next day, another double claim—and again the decision went against Noltenius. the usage of decision (umpire's decision) is another potential "game" analogy. Suggest: "A similar situation arose the next day, when Nolenius' claim for a shot down enemy aircraft was officially credited to another pilot."
  • He survived being blown out of the sky on 14 September,... Given the way the previous paragraph ended, I was expecting a mention of the transfer here. Suggest adding something like "Continuing with flight operations while awaiting his transfer, he survived..."
  • However, he was... The usage of "However" implies a connection to the loss of the aircraft but they are really two separate incidents.
  • He was shot down again... Again? He hasn't been shot down before - If the "again" is in reference the balloon explosion, he made it back to base and landed so that doesn't really constitute being shot down.
  • on the 22nd 22 September - keeps the date presentation consistent
  • By this time, Noltenius had successfully claimed victory over another four enemy airplanes... Suggest "By this time, Noltenius had successfully claimed victory over destroyed another four enemy airplanes
  • this time within the Flying Circus The usage of "within" implies that JG6 was part of the Flying Circus. If so, I suggest mentioning that when JG6 is first identified.
  • his 21st and last credited victory needs to mention that it was an Airco de Havilland DH.4, otherwise the caption for the corresponding image is effectively unsourced. Thinking of the disputes over double claiming, should it state "last officially credited victory for clarity?
  • Pour le Mérite is italicised in the lead but not here.
  • He had flown 141 combat sorties by war's end. Suggest moving this sentence to close out this section, puts everything in chronological order.

Postwar life

[edit]

References

[edit]
  • Franks & Giblin needs to be listed in Sources section.
    • As it turned out, I could delete this. I went through and verified all cites while confirming Franks & Giblin, supplied print cites to replace website cites, and managed to eliminate Franks & Giblin.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Other stuff

[edit]
  • The image tags look OK, not that image copyright is a strength of mine.
  • The caption "Noltenius' weapon was a Fokker D.VII." I would think most people would think of a weapon as something that is held, pistol, rifle, knife. I suggest "Noltenius flew a Fokker D.VII during his career as a fighter pilot" or similar.
  • One dupe link: observation balloon

OK, that's my initial review done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unrequested changes

[edit]

Addenda

[edit]

When I went back through the texts, I found that Noltenius had six victories awarded to other pilots--including three awarded to themselves by the very commanding officers making the decisions. No wonder Friedrich wanted a transfer or two!Georgejdorner (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking good, there is no doubt in my mind this is a GA. I just want to have another detailed pass of the article and changes before passing, will be a day or two more. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Georgejdorner, I made a couple of changes RE adding a translation to the text, I think it got overlooked. There is one further suggestion I would like you to consider but I don't view it as significant enough to hold up promotion and will be passing this as a GA. The suggestion is the "In the beginning" section ...on 3 November 1917. In February 1918,... The close usage of dates is a little jarring. I would suggest something like: "...on 3 November 1917. Four months later..." Regardless, I am passing as GA as noted above as I consider that this meets the necessary criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a careful and attentive review. This talk page should serve as an example of both an unfair and rude review, contrasted to your skilled and perceptive reviewing.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friedrich_Noltenius&oldid=1208391475"