Talk:Carl Menckhoff/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 07:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. Comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• was a German First World War fighter ace Suggest "was a German fighter ace of the First World War". Helps break up the blue links.
  • Broke up blue link jam by unlinking terms that are of general knowledge and do not require linking.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• aviation as a non-commissioned officer, but afterwards succeeded in being commissioned as an officer commissioned and officer used twice quite close to each other. Suggest rephrasing.
  • Plugged in Vizefeldwebel.

OK, happy with lead. Zawed (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Early life

• ...the Air Corps Shouldn't this be Imperial German Air Service?
  • At this date, the actual name was Die Fliegertruppen des deutschen Kaiserreiches or 'Aviation Troops for the German Empire'.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As you may have noticed by now, German aviation terms do not translate tidily. The situation is not helped by constant renaming of units/branches.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I see his memoirs are cited for this entire section. I remain concerned about how heavily these are relied upon for this article and raises some questions. Some examples, just from this section alone: why does he "possibly" have ten siblings (does he not know how many brothers and sisters he had?); whose opinion is it that his father's linen business was successful (if it's his own, then the opinion is biased and should not be in Wiki voice); why is it only "probable" that he participated in balloon flights with his brother? There needs to be some critical scrutiny of what exactly the source is being used for throughout the article. Memoirs can be used to a certain extent, but not excessively, and even then with care: a good example of appropriate usage IMHO, is the final sentence of this section. You are using it there to express his own opinion which is OK in the context. Zawed (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you don't have access to this particular source, so will have limited ability to check these. This is a drawback in taking articles through an assessment process where sources are not to hand. Zawed (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I share your uneasiness over the memoirs. I have done everything I can to reduce the article's reliance on this book. I really wish I could have viewed the source for myself.

Prior to this, I have submitted GANs where I was the creating/principal editor. This venture into representing other editors' work is enlightening, to say the least.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, to join the Air Force.. This is the first mention of this branch of the military so should be Luftstreitkräfte (Air Force). Zawed (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Good catch.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Military service

• reported for military service as a "one-year volunteer" Is it known what branch/national contingent? Ditto the Infantry Regiment in the following paragraph.
  • As he was a Prussian, he would probably have joined the Prussian Army, but the source does not say.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Suggest combining the first paragraph (its just one sentence} of this section with the previous section, then have the section heading as First World War. Maybe have the Aerial service has a second tier heading, i.e. same level as the Downfall heading.
  • I see no merit to this suggestion.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree. The present construction of this section comes across as disjointed. Zawed (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Aerial service

• transfer to the Luftstreitkräfte translation?
  • Changed and translated.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• In April 1916 he was... close usage of month/year following the end of the previous sentence. Suggest "Three months later..."
  • Shifted date.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• What type of aircraft he was flying at this stage (late 1915/early 1916)
  • As noted in text, an Albatros D.IIIGeorgejdorner (talk)
  • Caption to photo tells of later use of Albatros D.V.Fokker D.VII.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• translation for Jagdstaffel 3
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• The end of the second paragraph needs a cite. Any noteworthy instances of him being shot down, perhaps he was wounded?
  • Deleted as vague and inconsequential.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Third paragraph, put the date to follow during the latter's battle
  • Menckhoff's involvement in Voss's last stand is significant enough it merits a rewrite. Stay tuned.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Significant rewrite done.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• First sentence of the fourth paragraph would be a better fit to finish off the third paragraph.
  • No. Menckhoff's involvement in Voss's last stand is significant enough it merits a rewrite.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Significant rewrite done.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• The amount of detail in the "Last stand in the sky" section is excessive considering the subject of the article is Menckhoff not Voss. It could be summarised and tacked onto the last sentence of the previous section (which is uncited) "It has long been thought that on 23 September, Menckhoff was the pilot of the red-nosed Albatros that attempted to come to the aid of one of Germany's leading fighter aces during the latter's fatal dogfight with eight British SE-5a fighters from No. 56 Squadron RFC, one being flown by James McCudden. The Albatros was driven off while Voss shot down killed. However, in 2013, Hannes Täger..." The heading doesn't really work either since it doesn't have a bearing on the section starting In October, Menckhoff was promoted... Zawed (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Voss's last stand was one of the most notable air battles of the war, and is/has been extensively covered (and romanticized). Menckhoff's participation is mentioned in virtually every account of the battle, Voss's bio, or Menckhoff's bio without reservations. The account I wrote both acknowledges this and subtly debunks it.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• RE Note 2: this would fit much better if it was to follow the mention of when the award came through. Zawed (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Indeed, I posted this note in this location somewhat out of frustration I couldn't point out that Menckhoff's insistence on shooting down enemy fighters is very unusual--maybe unprecedented. I have moved it in line with your suggestion, with minor rewriting.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• promoted to Leutnant der Reserve The link should be to the German rank, not lieutenant. Although lieutenant should be added to the text as a translation for the rank.
  • Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk)
• Menckhoff of his Pour le Merite Dupe link here for Pour le Merite and should be in italics for consistency with first mention.
  • Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Anything on where Jagdstaffel 72 was based and types of missions flown while he was in command?
  • Based at Leffincourt in support of 18th Army (German Empire).Georgejdorner (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Shoehorned Bergnicourt into text even though it is already in caption of pic and in Jasta 72 article.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Nothing specific on types of missions.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Translation for Staffelführer
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• As with the Wolff article, his record as a fighter ace is glossed over which doesn't do him or the reader justice. Not looking for a blow by blow account, but some sort of summary, e.g. most of his victories were over fighters/bombers, he flew operations in support of the battle of X,
  • This is going to take some cogitation and research.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Cogitation and research produced an extensive rewrite.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

It also produced a linked table of victories.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Downfall and capture

• Downfall as a heading seems a bit romantic (fall from grace etc...). I suggest replacing the heading with Prisoner of War
  • Come now, even an encyclopedia can use a touch of style now and again.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree and I think it is somewhat an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. However, this is not an issue I will die in a ditch over. Zawed (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• A body has to be careful defending old-timey print as ideals for WP.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Post-war years

• The portion about his internment really belongs in the previous section. Even though it was after the war, it is a consequence of his war service. I think this Post-war section should commence at the point covering his move to Berlin.
  • And I thought you were a disciple of chronology. Will rewrite.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Presumably no link for Deutsche Luft Lloyd GmbH? As an airline, I wondered if it may be notable in its own right.
  • There are a welter of similarly named airlines, but none I can connect to this name.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, no luck in linking the heating company.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• establish daughter companies in France and Switzerland. I am not sure of the usage of daughter in this context, my initial reaction would be for "sister companies", but I'm not sure on this. Would "corresponding companies" or "subsidiary companies" work?
  • Alas, I am a neophyte in matters of business. Your suggestions on business matters will fall on an attentive eye.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Your suggestions are definitely welcome.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Suggest "similar companies". Zawed (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  Actually strike that, I'm liking your approach on a second reading, but with a slight tweak: How about: "He was able to expand his company internationally, into France and to Switzerland." Zawed (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Adopted suggestion as is.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Link Berlin
  • Come on, everybody knows about Berlin. Something this obvious does not need linking.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• In articles I have taken through GA/A-Class linking of cities/towns, even major ones, is a common request. I wouldn't link countries unless it was one that no longer exists e.g. British Malaya. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Linking common knowledge subjects is pretty silly. If a reviewer required it, I would refuse.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• many of his shares and business patents,... It's your bad luck that you get a reviewer who happens to be a patent attorney, I'm going to be pedantic on this! Business patents, do you mean patents owned by the business, otherwise I don't understand what is meant here. If so, this should be "and his business' patents". Also link patents.
  • It's my good luck I am being reviewed by a patent attorney, as I am patently ignorant of the subject.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Your suggestions are definitely welcome.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • How about writing this up as a theft of intellectual property, as well as financial theft by the Nazis?Georgejdorner (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Wish I had access to Tager so I could get the straight gen on this. Gave it my best shot. Merged two paras, two cites, shuffled sentences, linked by best guess, rewrote.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Reviewing the changes here, I suggest deleting "business" from and business patents to them. and leaving it at that. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Was he survived by all of his children. Add that he was survived by his wife?
  • Sources are mum except for info given about Gerhard and his mother.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Personal life

• I've never been a big fan of sections that aren't in chronological order with the rest of the article. How do you feel about integrating this section into chronological order in the text? The last wife is already mentioned in the previous section.
  • Although Personal life is often given after a subject's professional life, I have never been comfortable with it for reasons of chronology. Still, this is a lot of info to work into the narrative. We shall see.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    • While I agree that there are cases where it's better not to try to unravel personal and professional lives, I don't think this is one of them: Menckhoff seems to have kept the two quite distinct. Many readers will come to a biographical encyclopedia article not wanting to read the whole thing top-to-tail, but in search of limited information on some specific aspect of the subject's life. It's for their benefit that we split it into clearly identified sections and subsections, and – in this case, and in many others – it makes sense to me to separate out "Personal life". GrindtXX (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Excellent points. I do respect the necessity for Personal life sections when indicated for clarity's sake. And I do believe this is one of those cases, because I am turning up more personal information for this section.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

        Still not crazy about a separate Personal life section. The first wife and children could be mentioned in the early life section, and then just say in the Post-war years section that the first marriage was dissolved and that he had three more marriages that resulted in divorce or dissolution. The last sentence of the current second paragraph could end like: "owned by the family of his fifth wife, [name]." The mention of language skills could be shoehorned into the section that mentions taking his business international, presumably it would have been handy then. Admittedly I'm not sure how to deal with the mention of his appearance. As the cite seems to date from when he was shot down maybe work it in there? Actually the refusal to speak English because of French officers being present is interesting, it seems very respectful. Perhaps that could be worked in as well? Zawed (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

        • As noted, I am not a big fan of Personal life sections either. Still, pay attention to the farfetched suggestions you are making, to relocate these factoids so they can disrupt the textual flow. My view is, we're stuck with this section.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

• In May 2007, Walter Avery's daughter... Might pay to recap who Avery is at this point (e.g. In May 2007, the daughter of Walter Avery, who had shot down Menckhoff,...). I had a "who is he" moment and had to go back up the page to find out.
  • The rewrite segues from mention of Gerhard (who is last person mentioned in prior section) to Avery's daughter.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Can we add Karl to that as Gerhard appears to be the middle name, not his given one. Zawed (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oooohhhh! How could I have missed this one? I rewrote the section for increased clarity.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Notes and sources

• Tager is the main source used but as editor of Menckhoff's memoir, which would be considered a primary source itself. Are there footnotes, cites etc... that suggest Tager did some checking/verification of Menckhoff's statements/claims. There are several points where Tager is used as one of two or more refs. If the other ref or refs supports entirely what is stated, I suggest removing the Tager ref so that it is not as heavily cited.
  • I inherited Tager from another editor, and find I can't get a page view through Amazon books. I will certainly reduce it as much as possible.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Minimized Tager cites.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• As noted above, there is still a strong reliance on Tager. There are also a heck of a lot of page ranges encompassed within a single cite. E.g. cite 3 is covered by pages 14–16, 19–20, 72, 218–20.
• As a general comment, there are some variances in the page ranges, which is a mix of hyphens and en-dashes. Zawed (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Why is text for note 44 different to all the other Tager refs?
  • I am going to change the form of all the cites, to make them more understandable.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Changed.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• For the 2004 Franks book, list the other authors.
  • I am going to change the form of all the cites, to make them more understandable.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• There are two Guttman refs dated 2009. Designate one as 2009a and the other as 2009b and adjust the notes accordingly so the reader can tell which note relates to which Guttman book.
  • I am going to change the form of all the cites, to make them more understandable. I was unable to resolve this ambiguity in sources. Found a workaround and deleted them.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Some of the books lack publisher's location.
  • I am going to change the form of all the cites, to make them more understandable.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Remedied.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Doesn't look like Shores is used at all.
  • Moved to Further reading.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• That should be in a standalone section, not part of the sources used. Ditto for the Who's who ref in the online section, it doesn't seem to be cited. Zawed (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• • I am going to change the form of all the cites, to make them more understandable.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• To be honest with you, I find the form used for the cites to be overwhelming. While I am not proposing that they be redone here as it is my understanding that ultimately it may be a matter of preference, as a general comment, I suggest that you consider using the sfn style of citation for your work on future articles. I find them simpler to use, even for works by the same author published in the same year. I deal with that by assigning designators on the publication year, e.g. 2021a, 2021b. Zawed (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand the sfn and sfnp system of citing. What's the difference? It's strictly a "monkey see, monkey do" struggle for me to use that system. And, as you noted, you need workarounds to deal with situations like those found in the aviation history field.
• I come to WP from a writing background--publication history back to the 1970s, education up to MFA. Such wiki markup as I have mastered has been simple copywork, without real understanding of the process. My focus is on writing articles, not coding for them. A cite that ties in book titles does not have to be "translated" by me. In your format, I have to use the author names to look up the titles...then the light bulb goes on.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• I might add, I see little reason for redoing and redoing the cites. I think we should agree on a given system, so only one of us corrects cites. Which, BTW, should not be you. You are a reviewer, but not a co-author (at least in this instance), and you should not waste your time on the editing I should be doing. Please, husband your energies for reviewing, at which you excel.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Other stuff

• Image tags check out OK
• Dupe links, the Pour le Mérite as noted above, Royal Flying Corps.
  • Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

That's my first pass done. Will check back in a while. I understand that the Wolff article will be your focus for the moment. Zawed (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Unrequested changes

1) When I create articles on WWI aviation, I avoid the present citation method. Because the same few authors/coauthors write in this niche, this citation method is usually pretty dry and confusing. I find an alternate citation form works better, as you shall see after the change.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

2) Okay, citation conversion complete. Note that this is not final. As I work my way through your list, I will be still be verifying cites, deleting them, etc. But right now, I need a break.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

3) The first difficulty. Neither of the seemingly identical Guttman books can be accessed through Amazon's Look Inside feature, nor can the Tager reference. Best I can do is take these on good faith, while trying to reduce the article's reliance on them.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

4) Added subheader under Aerial service: From infantry duty to aviation service. Resisted impulse to make it From mud to the clouds.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

5) Made another try at peeking into the Guttmans and Tager. No luck.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

6) Rewrite of he lede was not requested, but was inevitable given the degree of change to the article.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

A matter of perspective

My GANs are not an ego show. While gaining GA approval is satisfying, a GA failure won't hurt my feelings. My aim is to considerably improve WP's article via a GAN. As you will see when you get to Noltenius, I can utilize even the worst reviews.

In the present case, I can see excellent reason for you to fail this GAN. Large chunks of it cannot be verified. If you should choose to fail it for that reason, I will not object, nor will I resubmit it. I will find another article to work upon, and leave Menckhoff to a future reviewer with greater access to the materials.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered thoughts here. I remain uneasy with the reliance on Tager and its unfortunate unavailability for verification. While there are still things I believe require further work, these are not insurmountable (and some of those I will concede are probably more a matter of personal preference rather than a need to meet GA criteria), if it were not for the Tager issue, this Menckhoff article would end up as a GA in due course. Bearing in mind your perspective as outlined here, I am leaning towards failing the article and will do so in the next day or so unless you can see an alternative or gain access to a replacement source for Tager. It is frustrating as I have invested some time in reviewing this article and that probably pales in comparison to the time you will have spent on the article. At least, if nothing else, it is in better shape than when you first found it. Zawed (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I just made one more attempt to access Tager, with no luck.

At this point, I guess we are at a dead end. This is the first GAN failure I ever sponsored, out of 100+, if we ignore a couple of temporary failures a la Noltenius. It's certainly changed my approach toward GANs. I am going to take more time investigating articles I did not create before I take them on as a GAN.

While I am pretty philosophic about this, I can imagine you are rather disappointed. I appreciate your diligence and ability as a reviewer--you are terrific. However, WP did gain a much improved B Class article from your reviewing efforts. I hope you can take some satisfaction from that.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that one last scout for Tager. I've gone ahead and failed this for now. Maybe one day, you or another editor will come across a source that will allow a second go at GA for this one. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if I ever can get access to Tager.... But I'm through for now.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)