Jump to content

Talk:Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • First paragraph of lead goes into too much detail: third through sixth sentences could be summed up as: "Like many fighter units of the Luftwaffe, JG 1 was reorganized several times and served as a donor unit during the war to enlarge other fighter wings."
      • Point incorporated. However statement regarding history retained as its historically significant in counting scores. Perseus71 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much better wording with an appropriate level of detail. Also, with the edit notice on the article I didn't want to create an edit conflict, but the in the last sentence of this first paragraph, I would suggest "the history of JG 1 is inextricably linked" rather than "the history of "JG 1" would be inextricably linked" — Bellhalla (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • weasel words in last sentence of lead: Who said this? Also, as an aside, do you mean coincidentally rather than ironically?
    • Inconsistent presentation of German words and English translations. In some cases the German is presented first with English in parentheses, while in others it's the reverse. In one case, Kette, there is no translation. Given that this is the English Wikipedia, my preference would be for English first with the {{lang-de}} template in parentheses.
    • When referring to the unit as "JG 1", it would be helpful to have a non-breaking space so that JG and 1 don't end up on different lines. (If you are like me and hate the " ", you can copy this: "JG 1" (which has a non-breaking space character in it).
    • In the first sentence of "Formation history", "Bf 109" is neither linked nor explained.
    • What does "numerical pride of place" mean? It's not a phrase with which I am familiar.
    • No need for the honorifics: "Dr. Erich Mix was replaced by …" → "Erich Mix was replaced by …". Same with his listing farther down in the article as well.
    • How about: "As a result, JG 1 ceased to exist for [a specific period of time]." instead of: "This caused JG 1 ceasing to exist for a period of time."
    • Charts in section "Organization structure":
      • Why is the text of differing sizes in the different sections? Is that intentional?
      • The dates don't sort chronologically, which could be fixed with {{dts}}, but what does sortability accomplish in this case, especially since the charts are so short?
      • In section "Group IV./JG 1" the chart comes immediately after the lower-level heading. Since the text flows around the charts as with an image, I would advise following WP:IMAGE and moving the table so that it's not directly under a lower-level heading.
    • The "Dissolution" section starts off talking about the fuel capacity of a particular plane (without providing any context), rather than discussing the dissolution of the unit. (A good way to think about major sections like this is to consider this: Would someone linking directly to this section have any idea what was being discussed without having to scroll up and read the whole article?)
    • In the "Commanding officers" section, it would be helpful to have a sentence explaining the time gaps. Something as simple as "[Unit name] was formed in [month year], was disbanded in [month year], and reestablished in [month year]" before each list. This helps convey that the information is not an incomplete list, for example, and helps break up the list-after-list-after-list structure.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • There are entire paragraphs and one entire section without any references at all
      • The Section on "Organization Structure" is an extract/based on original article. That article is refrenced with {Main} tag. As to the paragraphs, there are only secondary references. I will try and add primary references. Perseus71 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Outside of summary style sections, I see these paragraphs without any references:
          1. final paragraph of "Formation history"
          2. second and third paragraphs of "Unit emblem and color schemes"
          3. third, fourth, and final paragraph of "Notable successes and losses"
          4. None of the lists within "Commanding officers"
    • There are some stray references in between some paragraphs
    • In some places where there are consecutive references at the end of a sentence, the notes are not in numerical order as suggested by the MOS. Example: last sentence of section "Headquarters Flight JG 1"
    • The works listed in the References section are not in alphabetical order
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • I'm concerned about the notability of the casualty lists in two of the subsections of "Wartime history". I intend no disrespect to any men that died for their country, but are all of these men really notable? And, if they are judged to be notable, are they more notable than men unlisted in the other "Wartime history" sections that died in other phases of the war?
      • If you are referring to the men Died as a result of Operation Bodenplatte in that section, then those were only for the case someone links directly to this section. For now I have moved that list to the "Missing and killed in action" Section. Is your intent to not have such list at all ?Perseus71 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My viewpoint is that a list of casualties should only contain notable (i.e. they either have or should have a Wikipedia article about them) casualties. Not everyone who dies in a war is notable (again intending no disrespect to anyone). If a list of all casualties is to be include—which is, in my view, a big if, given that Wikipedia is intended for a general audience—it really should be all casualties, not just the casualties from a particular operation. So in order of my preference:
          1. List of Notable casualties only
          2. No list (with discussion of notable casualties in the text)
          3. List of all casualties, not just some from one operation
        • — Bellhalla (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As it stands, the Missing and killed in action section has all the known casualties. This I believe complies with your point 3 above. If this section is still not satisfactory then I will remove it altogether. I'd like to know your thoughts on keeping this information on Wikipedia in some other form like sub article or such ? Please let me know. Perseus71 (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The article says that 464 pilots were killed in action, but I see only about 10% of that number in the two charts combined. Am I not getting something, or are 90% of the casualities unknown? — Bellhalla (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't say for a fact that 90 % of the casualties are unknown. But I believe that from all the creditable references that I was able to gather, I could not find a complete exhaustive list of casualties. If you feel that the list should not be provided then perhaps can we comment it out and request a consensus on the same from authors of other JG wings' article ? Perseus71 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That entire section containing the list is commented out. Perseus71 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think the tables for notable, single actions are MOST important. You have to understand that the table of the 1/1/45 relates not just to a day of action, but an entire operations - the last major ofensive by the Luftwaffe in the war. This must stay where it is. Dapi89 (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think it's a much stronger article without a partial list of casualties. A pilot that died on 1 January 1940 is no more and no less notable than a pilot that died on 1 January 1945. By including a partial list here in this article about the history of a particular unit (and not a particular battle or operation), we at Wikipedia would be implicitly saying that these pilots were more important than those pilots, which goes against the core policy of neutral point-of-view. If actions of that particular day, and the pilots lost therein, are especially notable, perhaps they need an article of their own? — Bellhalla (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Placing on hold for seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good job with the article, and good luck with it should you pursue A-Class or Featured Article status. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jagdgeschwader_1_(World_War_II)/GA1&oldid=259517810"