Talk:Rudolf Frank/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 05:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi mate, I should be able to get to this by mid-week at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Toolbox checks

• No dablinks or EL issues.
• No duplinks based on Ucucha's checker.

Prose/style -- copyedit a bit so pls let me know if I misunderstood anything; outstanding points:

• I think linking World War II and modern countries like the Netherlands is overdoing things (obsolete political entities like Nazi Germany is different) but will leave it up to you whether to keep them or not.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• I gather it's German practice to capitalise ranks like Leutnant, so no objection there, but I don't think the English translations (e.g. Second Lieutenant) should be capitalised unless used as a title. For instance, I'd expect you to say "Oberleutnant (First Lieutenant) Günther Specht" (which you do) but "promoted to Leutnant (second lieutenant)".
  • done should have known this MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Frank was born on 19 August 1920 in Karlsruhe-Grünwinkel at the time in the Republic of Baden during the time of the Weimar Republic" -- I think this could be worded better but first I need to confirm what is current and what is past. I know the Republic of Baden and the Weimar Republic are obsolete, does Karlsruhe-Grünwinkel still exist under that name?
  • The next sentence answers this, I thought "Grünwinkel is a borough located in the south-west of Karlsruhe." and Karlsruhe, thus subsequently Grünwinkel, at the time of his birth was in the Republic of Baden. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks, that helps, I had a go at rewording a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• "These crashes remained without any personal consequences for Frank" -- the "remained" is odd in English, and by "without personal consequences" do you mean "without injury" or "without reprimand"?
  • the second, "without reprimand", damaging an aircraft could have had him grounded or other more severe consequences MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks, tweaked. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Frank was also posthumously promoted, backdated to 1 April 1944" -- did I miss what rank he was promoted to?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah, sorry, you did imply his posthumous rank, but good to make clear -- I delinked/detranslated as you'd already done so just before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Structure/detail seem fine.

Referencing

• Formatting looks okay (no action required).
• I'm not sure about the three online refs you cite -- what makes them reliable? They look like they're maintained by enthusiasts rather than by historians but perhaps I'm wrong... Admittedly I tend not to be too hard on that sort of thing at GA-level (as opposed to ACR or FAC).
  • I have no opinion about this, if you think it should be removed, I can do so MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    • As far as I'm concerned, it depends on whether you're happy to let the article sit on GA or want to take it further, to ACR/FAC. If the former I wouldn't worry too much; if the latter, I'd seek more obviously reliable sources or simply remove the info -- up to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Images

• Licensing looks okay (no action required).
• I didn't see alt text but admittedly it's not actually a requirement.

Summary -- looks pretty good, I'll await your responses to the above points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your copy editing and constructive feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Always a pleasure working with you -- happy to pass now but of course let me know if any issues with my recent tweaks... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)