Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Theodor Weissenberger

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.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Theodor Weissenberger

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it should the criteria. Weissenberger was among the few pilots of World War II to achieve ace status flying the Me 262 jet fighter and died shortly after the war in a car racing accident. I hope you enjoy the read. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as usual, fine work. As usual, I made some tweaks for passive verb tense etc. Support per prose. If someone wants me to check the sources, I will. A cursory look at them revealed no problems; they are the typical sources MrB uses for his articles. auntieruth (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, good work so far, I have the following suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick copy edit. I think it should be okay for A-class, but it may need more if you intend on taking to FAC;
do we know his parent's names and where he went to school?
- sorry no I don't MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - no worries, if it is not recorded, there is no need to add it in AustralianRupert (talk)
do we know what aircraft he flew while with 2./Flieger-Ersatz-Abteilung 14?
- sorry no I don't MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
inconsistent presentation: "Weissenberger" v. "Weißenberger";
- one occurance fixed, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the first sentence of the World War II section doesn't seem necessary to me, and seems a bit abrupt;
- I thought it helps the reader understand the sequence of events better. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - G'day, my concern is that it is very abrupt and doesn't link well with the following sentence. I've tweaked it now to how I think it might be reworded; pls check and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest trying to split this sentence (as it seems a bit long): "His unit, 1.(Z)/Jagdgeschwader 77 (JG 77—77th Fighter Wing) was a Zerstörer (Z—heavy fighter or destroyer) Staffel (squadron) flying the twin-engine, up to three-seat, Messerschmitt Bf 110 stationed in Norway, operating in the area of Murmansk during the Continuation War, the hostilities between Finland and the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1944."
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"during the Continuation War, the hostilities between Finland and the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1944". Perhaps it should be clarified that the Germans were flying in support of the Finnish during that conflict? Not sure...
- good point, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the convert templates seem a bit inconsistent, for instance sometimes they seem to spell out the whole word e.g. "kilometers" and then other times just use the abbreviation e.g. "km". Could this be made consistent?
- I used the whole name on first occurance of a metric unit and from then on the abbreviated variant. I thought this is how it should be done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure, sorry. I will let this one go through to the 'keeper. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
are the timings that events occured such as taking off, or aircraft were shot down really relevant? While its great that these details exist, I personnally think it is too much in this sort of article (that said, I recognise that I am probably in the minority here, so I am not insisting on removal, just voicing an opinion);
- Acknowledge, let's see how others feel about this level of detail MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
in the Awards section it seems to imply that the subject received the Iron Cross in 1939, but the body of the article doesn't seem to mention this. Am I misinterpreting this?
- you may be? The year 1939 refers to the variant of the Iron Cross and does not mean he received the award that year. Historically, four variants of the Iron Cross have been awarded, the 1815 variant, the 1870 variant, the 1914 variant and the 1939 variant. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - G'day, I've tweaked this to make it a bit clearer (in my mind, at least). Please check that you are happy with this change. AustralianRupert (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the review and CEing the article MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks again for the review, your changes look appropriate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this at GAN in January and have had a look at the changes since then.
suggest He claimed eight of these victories over the Western Allies while flying the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter.
- Thanks, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would put the English rank equivalents back in, even if only as notes. German ranks are pretty unintelligible to non-German readers.
all toolchecks are ok
that's all I have. Well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check all but one are PD, the remaining one (the group photograph of Oak Leaves recipients) appears to have a valid FUR. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.