Jump to content

Talk:Kurt Wolff (aviator): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
WugBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
64,469 edits
m This article has been nominated at WP:DYKN to be featured on the main page. WugBot v0.4.0-dev
Rfc posted.
Line 21: Line 21:


{{Talk:Kurt Wolff (aviator)/GA1}}
{{Talk:Kurt Wolff (aviator)/GA1}}
===Request for comment===

{{rfc|hist}}
==Did you know nomination==
A suggested historical hook for a DYK on Kurt Wolff (aviator) is under discussion because reviewers believe that mention of a 1917 event in certain words will spark rioting in the streets.
{{Did you know nominations/Kurt Wolff (aviator)}}
{{Did you know nominations/Kurt Wolff (aviator)}}

Revision as of 20:48, 17 January 2021

WikiProject iconBiography: Military GA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / Biography / European / German / World War I GA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
Military biography task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
German military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War I task force

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessed as B Class as article has been greatly expanded.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kurt Wolff (aviator)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 07:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this one. Comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a general comment, there is not a huge amount of content here. Presumably this is a reflection of the sources, but for avoidance of doubt, is there anything to be added in relation to the names of parents, how they died, and any siblings? Also his service in the war up until he joined the air service?

Early life

Fighter pilot

  • ...and was assigned to 2-seater unit Kampfstaffel 26 This is unclear, Kampfstaffel 26 can't be a 2-seater unit, but presumably it operated 2-seater aircraft. What type?
  • The lead mentions three bomber units but this isn't clear here. Was he serving on the Western Front/Eastern Front?
  • translation for the German unit names
  • the then undistinguished Jagdstaffel 11 Why was it undistinguished?
  • command was given to Manfred von Richthofen. Under the Red Baron's leadership,... What was his rank at the time. It also needs to specify that he was the Red Baron. I actually think to use Red Baron to refer to Ricthofen is a bit non-encyclopedic (it is OK to mention that was his nickname though). This comment also applies to the lead. Also did he have that nickname at the time he joined? From the Richthofen article, he only started painting his aircraft red when he became a squadron commander.
    • If WP followed its own rules of listing under the best-known name, Manfred von Richthofen is best known to the general public as the Red Baron, and should be listed as such. Most folks, when asked to name the Red Baron, are clueless. However, I have clarified the nickname, even though the color of his airplane is irrelevant to this article. As for his WP article...so many editors churn so many edits through it, I pay it no attention.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was that if his nickname is derived from the time he started painting his plane red, which seemed to only happen once he took over, then it seems inappropriate to immediately refer to him as the Red Baron. Presumably it took some time for the nickname to become established afterwards. Zawed (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick peek at The Red Baron's Combat Wing shows his Albatros D.V was painted red as early as January 1917. My memory says his earlier model Albatros was also red. However, this niggling is ridiculous. I am half inclined to delete all reference to the Red Baron nickname, even though it is the main point of interest for the average reader.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When introducing Richthofen, its OK to state he was known, or later known as the case may be, as the Red Baron. However, as noted above I find its subsequent use in identifying Richthofen to be non-encyclopedic. Zawed (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be getting hung up on the name of the Richthofen article rather than addressing my comment. A wrestler is not a particularly good example and if you notice in the Pappy Boyington article, at no point is "Pappy" used to refer to the subject when in Wiki voice. It is always Boyington (or he). Zawed (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the rest of the Jasta,... No antecedence for Jasta. Presumably it is short for Jagdstaffel but that hasn't been stated.
  • His tally of victories seem to be glossed over; can some more detail be worked into the narrative? I note the lead says He would score same day multiple victories on several occasions,... but here there are only two such occasions mentioned, so not several.
    • The recitation of 33 victories quickly becomes boring. On the other hand, an actual list clogs up the article's flow. In the past, I have whipped an accompanying list as a separate linked article. I am going to think on this one.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree RE a list is not to everyone's taste (I don't prefer them myself), but I think there are ways to expand on this as a summary form, to add interest for the reader but without necessarily reciting each kill. For example, were several shot down from the same squadron, or in the same location, or were predominately the same aircraft types. He shot down 22 in Bloody April but seven were in two days, so was there periods where he had a "dry spell" and so on. Where was his squadron based at the time, did they move about, what was the type of missions being flown, patrols, and so on. Zawed (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bodenschatz was the non-flying Adjutant of Jasta 11, and I have designated him as such.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final fight

  • I'm confused here. We jump from Jasta 11 in the final sentence of the previous section to Jagdgeschwader 1 in the first sentence of this section.
  • Link Memel, Flight Lieutenant, No. 10 Squadron Royal Naval Air Service. If No. 1 Naval Squadron (previous section) was part of the RNAS, the link to the Royal Naval Air Service should be there on its first mention, not here.
  • Suggest the information about MacGregor's victory count and DSC (recite in full) be moved to a footnote rather than being part of the main article. which is after all about Wolff.
  • Move the sentence about his remains to immediately follow that relating to his crash. That way the discussion about being the leading Albatross ace finishes off the article, along with mention of awards.
  • Wervik stated in body of article but Moorslede in infobox.

Endnotes

Other stuff

That's my initial pass done. Will check back in a few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments by nominator: Need a break. Will return to finish off last few items above, then append general comments here.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pause needed: I believe I have addressed most of your list of concerns. I have also rewritten some sections in the process. I would recommend that you doublecheck my work while I research the questions of aerial victories and "jasta" locations.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addenda: I have added a candid photo of Wolff to the article.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I hope): I can find no items unaddressed. Time to move on to Carl Menckhoff.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is looking good, your hard work has made a big difference and this is close to getting wrapped up. I have added a couple of comments above, plus a few more below:
  • In the lead: before being picked for fighter aviation. suggest "before being posted to a fighter squadron, the Royal Prussian Jagdstaffel 11."
  • In the lead: Flying Circus is used twice but I think the first mention isn't quite right as it was until later that it was formed.
  • In the lead: On 6 May 1917, after 29 victories,... suggest: "On 6 May 1917, having achieved 29 victories,..."
  • Slight rewrite.
  • Is there a link to the Prussian Knight's Cross?
  • Wolff was assigned to command Royal Prussian Jagdstaffel 29: missing a "the"? Same for the mention of this in the lead.
  • translation for leutnant?
  • Some of the Wolff in command section is out of chronological order. We have him returning to command of Jagdstaffel 11 before being informed that he had taken over it.
  • Manfred von Richthofen was raised to lead the new wing. Inheriting Richthofen's Jagdstaffel 11 command and leading... Suggest: As von Richthofen was appointed to lead the new wing, Wolff became commander of Jagdstaffel 11. Leading..."
  • In the final flight section, delink Belgium. Probably not necessary to link a country that is a current state. There is also an inconsistency in how time is presented in this section.
  • Strictly speaking, his victory tally of 33, mentioned in the lead, isn't in the body. I suggest adding it as the final sentence of the final paragraph. Something like: "At the time of his death, he was credited with having destroyed 33 enemy aircraft." Then move the "see also" Aerial victory standards to follow that so that they are close together. I think that would be a more natural flow for the See also section.
  • Looks like some dupelinks have crept in with your additions: Memel, Pour le Mérite (in the Bodenschatz quote), Jagdgeschwader I (twice in the lead, and twice in the body). Zawed (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the course of converting the web cites so I could pass this article, I notice an issue with the first usage of the Jasta 11 reference. It only supports the location of Jasta 11 at the time Wolff joined, it doesn't support his posting there. It's probably just a consequence of the expansion work, an earlier version of the article had Franks & Giblin as the cite for the original paragraph. The aerodrome entry for Wolff also has a different date for his joining. Zawed (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on citations

If you are going to change cites willy-nilly as a condition of passing nominations, I wish you would say so before I waste tedious hours posting my preferred form of cite. I don't think the general reader is well served by the form of cite you insist on, but I will put up with it as a condition of passing the nom. I do resent having the cites changed without prior discussion. I think you are a terrific reviewer. I also think you overstepped your role as a reviewer in this instance.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree on the web cite format, I happen to believe the general reader is better served with the present form not least because it gives them a larger target to click on if following the link, handy for those users with smaller screens/handheld devices. I had suggested the change in my initial review comments and your response was "Why?", to which I replied. With no further response or action on your part, I opted to attend to it myself to progress things. FWIW some of your responses have come across being less than co-operative. If you are going to submit articles for the GA process, and I hope you do because I think German WWI aces are bit underdone on Wikipedia, you may want to consider how your responses come across to someone who has invested some time in providing feedback with a view to improving the article. Moving along, while there are a couple of things that I'm not 100% happy with, I'm also not going to die in a ditch over what are in minor matters. I believe that this article is GA worthy, it provides reasonable coverage of the subject, is fully cited, reads well and is appropriately illustrated. Passing as GA now. Zawed (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You asked about changing cites to the Aerodrome--which amounts to three cites. If I had understood you meant all cites..well, I didn't.
You make an excellent point concerning those postage stamp screens, and one I had not thought of. However, once they click down to that garble of Franks, VanWyngarden, Kilduff, etc., what have they learned? I prefer the title form of cite because the average reader can gain some idea of the source from the title. It's a more reader-friendly cite. However, now you point out you thought you were being helpful, I can see why you are unhappy. I hope you can appreciate why I was unhappy to correct all those cites, just to see them changed.
However, if your form of cite is the price I have to pay to have you for a reviewer, I'll gladly do it. As I said above, I think you are a terrific reviewer--probably the best I have ever had. When you see my first GAN on Noltenius, you will see how bad a reviewer can be.
And yes, I tend to be blunt in my replies. It's not meant as discourtesy, but as a business-like approach. I am not purposely discourteous, rude, or insulting. I don't fight corrections of fact. If you will look back at the above review, you will see I adopt useful suggestions. But I will stand for my views in a controversy. And I do appreciate a heads-up on major changes.
My ultimate aim is always a better WP article. Thank you for an insightful and very useful review.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

A suggested historical hook for a DYK on Kurt Wolff (aviator) is under discussion because reviewers believe that mention of a 1917 event in certain words will spark rioting in the streets.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

My apologies to all. I will not be submitting DYK noms for a while. Looking at the below, I realize I have fallen into another occurrence of my PTSD. I am going into seclusion to get my head straight. I will be inactive or, at most, semiactive in WP for a while, probably until after Tet. I leave the DYK to whomever, to do whatever. Again, I apologize to those I offended.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that Kurt Wolff decorated his room with machine guns? Source: Franks & Giblin, Under the Guns of the Kaiser's Aces, p. 142. "...Kurt Wolff became an avid collector of souvenirs from the aircraft he had shot down. His room on the airfield was soon 'decorated' with numbers, guns, and parts looted from the machines of his vanquished foes."

Improved to Good Article status by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 05:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but I agree with The Rambling Man that a little more description needs to be added here. People are so on edge from Capitol Hill rioters and other gun-toting anarchists that putting this on the main page, sounding like some college kid decorating his room, is asking for trouble. Here are alt ideas:
  • ALT1: ... that Kurt Wolff decorated his room at La Brayelle Airfield with machine guns?
  • Or:
  • ALT2: ... that fighter ace Kurt Wolff decorated his room with machine guns? Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somehow, fiddling with the meaning of my suggested hook will keep armed yobbos from running amok in the streets? Please, have some respect for reason. If my mention of firearms in the DYK is somehow so upsetting it must be censored, you should censor all mention of firearms in DYK to be consistent. After you justify censorship to the WP community. But rather than submit to censorship of my ALT1, I would rather have the nomination killed.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not add just a little extra to the original hook:
  • ALT4: ... that Kurt Wolff decorated his room with machine guns from the planes he shot down?
That's still an interesting hook, while giving some context. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that you did not bother to read the above, or you would realize ALT4 is just as poorly conceived as the other alternatives suggested above. I am really baffled by the insistence that watering down interest in the DYK hook to make it less interesting will prevent the Proud Boys and Antifa from rioting. Is there an explanation for that? A news article, blog, tweet, whatever? From anyone?Georgejdorner (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution. --evrik (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT5 is probably the definitive hook on the subject matter. The other offered hooks would need some work. People who love guns tend to use their walls to display whatever they use as trophies, animals, human heads, or objects, or the weapons themselves. Not necessarily notable to state the obvious. — Maile (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article — as long as they don't misstate the article content."
    • Look familiar? It should. It's WP policy for writing hooks.
    • Now read my original hook. It does not misstate the article content. It is definitely catchy and mysterious.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now read the following suggestions by other editors. Notice that as they get longer, they lose their punch and catchiness and become less likely to attract readers to click the link and read the article. They devolve in quality to ALT5.
    • ALT5 is flatter than last week's beer. It is a flat out bore.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet, it is still not as boring as "someone decorated his room with something". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I request that this discussion not yet be closed because there is a Rfc pending. Thank you.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would request that I am not dragged into this please. I made my feelings clear in my initial review and don't need or want the drama at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Am I the only one noticing that ALT5 consists of facts cherry-picked from various locations within the article, with no supporting cites there or here?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Noticing what? The hook is a restatement of the second sentence of the page, which takes its facts (cited) from the article. I'm tapping out on this one. Good luck. --evrik (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's so strange that every hook suggestion from a good faith editor is receiving backlash. It's just simple fixes like adding "fighter ace" before his name or restating the article's content. If there are "no supporting cites there or here", that would only be on the nominator. I also do see David Eppstein's point about the hook being boring. Even a common non-notable person could have stuff on their walls of any room based on their interests and a notable person is no different. A difference would be ALT4 because not many people would place guns on their wall that were from planes that they actually shot down. Georgejdorner should probably just accept that they are in the minority about what hook is interesting and move on. SL93 (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, I concede. A careful review of the DYK policies has shown me that only nominators are required to supply cites and supporting evidence for cites. Reviewers are under no such restriction to prove truth. This clears the way for ALT5, even though it is not followed by a cite because it is from the lead. In fact, it clears you reviewers to run any hook you want. It has also made me realize that defense of a hook in DYK is pretty much wasted effort, because reviewers can still run whatever they can dream up.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Georgejdorner "Reviewers are under no such restriction to prove truth." is wrong. If the lead in the article is not referenced there or in the body of the article, it's on you for even trying to nominate it. Though I do see that the information in ALT5 is also in the body of the article with citations so you seem confused. SL93 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • SL93 I'm surprised you do not know the requirement that the sentence that originates a hook must be followed by a citation. By your scheme, two-thirds of ALT5 should be proven by two cites buried in the body of the text to account for victories, with the four-barreled name unaccounted for.
                    • If you can show me where you have ever supplied cites and supporting evidence for a hook as a reviewer, I will withdraw my above statement and apologize for it.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You don't seem to realize how easy of a fix that is before the article hits the main page. I don't need to prove myself to you nor do I value an apology from you. SL93 (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Misplaced comments moved from article's talk page

A suggested historical hook for a DYK on Kurt Wolff (aviator) is under discussion because reviewers believe that mention of a 1917 event in certain words will spark rioting in the streets.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALTs 3 and 4 would both make good hooks IMO if the phrase "German fighter ace" was added. I think they'd attract plenty of interest. Gatoclass (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing in the nominator's absence

Nominator Georgejdorner has posted that they will be absent from DYK for a while. How do we wish to proceed? We could continue with the previous hooks that hadn't been objected to, including the modifications to ALTs 3 and 4 per Gatoclass above:

  • ALT3a: ... that German fighter ace Kurt Wolff kept shot-down airplane parts and machine guns as souvenirs?
  • ALT4a: ... that German fighter ace Kurt Wolff decorated his room with machine guns from the planes he shot down?

There's also ALT5 above, though I've removed a comma from it. I've struck the original hook and ALT2 (ALT1 had previously been struck).

Courtesy ping to those who have been involved earlier in this review (no requirement to return): The Rambling Man, Yoninah, evrik, Maile, SL93, and David Eppstein.

Reviewer needed to look at the various hooks and decide which of them are suitable for use: interesting, in the article, and properly cited. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated hook was fine. It won't win any awards, and it certainly won't incite violence, but it was fine. This appears to have been a lot a kerfuffle over not much, and has resulted in a lot of upset. Got to learn when to let things go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken another look at this, ALTs 4 or 4a look like the best choice to me. I agree with David Eppstein and others who argued that the original hook does not contain enough information. Gatoclass (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3a or 4a are good. --evrik (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the choice will be between these two then ALT4a is probably the most interesting option since it specifies that the souvenirs came from planes that he shot down, as opposed to the more vague ALT3. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man, Gatoclass, BlueMoonset, Evrik, Maile66, SL93, and David Eppstein: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurt_Wolff_(aviator)&oldid=1001011651"