Wikipedia

Talk:Friedrich Noltenius/GA2

< Talk:Friedrich Noltenius
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Georgejdorner in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago56 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 11:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I will review in the next few days. Zawed (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, so it took me a bit longer than I thought to get here...comments as follows:

Infobox

edit

Lead

edit
  • I would mention him serving in the artillery initially before transferring to the Luftstreitkräfte (and when he transferred, he seemed to have accumulated victories quite quickly given he only started flying fighters in July 1918).
  • combat career began with a horrifying incident: his "combat" career arguably started with his service in the army, suggest rephrasing.
    • So a peacetime soldier's combat career begins with his/her enlistment?
      • No, I was referring to his war service with the artillery. We don't know one way or the other whether he came under fire or not (but he did get Iron Crosses and was wounded) before his aviation career. Zawed (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • You've made a good call here, but for the wrong reason. See above query.
    • Your combat career begins when you come under fire and/or start shooting at an enemy. Speaking from personal history, my combat career began over six years into my service.
    • I have inserted the term "aerial" to clarify text, as part of the rewrite.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Noltenius managed to begin shooting down enemy airplanes: the "managed" does not sit well with me; it implies some sort of struggle. I would suggest just referring to his first confirmed victory, e.g. Noltenius shot down his first confirmed enemy aircraft on 10 August 1918...
  • Only war's end: "Only the war's end..."?

Early life

edit

Aerial service

edit
  • transferred to flying service... recite the official name of the service (presumably Luftstreitkräfte?), plus translation of same. The infobox should reflect this as well.
  • Because we have a date for him starting aviation training that is well after the date of the awards, I think it is OK to move their mention into the previous section to follow the mention of the wounding (it keeps everything chronological). Does the source say that nor is it known which branch of service or is that something you added because it is not explicitly stated? Either way, I think just keeping it factual, i.e. that he received the awards, is preferable to introducing the potential ambiguity.
  • Noltenius began aviation training on 3 November 1917. what's the difference between aviation training (this sentence) and flight training (following sentence)
  • After only a brief... delete only, it is redundant given the use of "brief"
  • The heading "First kill" is inappropriate - presumably it is only Noltenius' opinion that it was his first kill. His combat claim could have rightfully been denied.
  • Flying in this killing weather Noltenius found himself one of three German pilots attacking a French Breguet 14 on the 18th. Not crazy about the phrasing here, particularly killing weather/18th. Suggest "Two days later, flying in these conditions, Noltenius found himself one of three German pilots attacking a French Breguet 14.}}
  • ...enemy observation balloon. The gasbag was too wet... Suggest combining these sentences, e.g. "...enemy observation balloon but it was too wet..."
  • His second win, ten days later,...: the "win" language is inappropriate and contributes to an unfavourable "game" analogy for aerial warfare. I suggest simply deleting it here, it is pretty clear, given the previous sentence, that "the second" it is referring to a victory
  • scoring his fifth and sixth triumphs. If the source supports it, suggest "...scoring his fifth and sixth triumphs that day", which I think it is what is intended? The present wording implies that he may have been an ace earlier.
  • The next day, another double claim—and again the decision went against Noltenius. the usage of decision (umpire's decision) is another potential "game" analogy. Suggest: "A similar situation arose the next day, when Nolenius' claim for a shot down enemy aircraft was officially credited to another pilot."
  • He survived being blown out of the sky on 14 September,... Given the way the previous paragraph ended, I was expecting a mention of the transfer here. Suggest adding something like "Continuing with flight operations while awaiting his transfer, he survived..."
  • However, he was... The usage of "However" implies a connection to the loss of the aircraft but they are really two separate incidents.
  • He was shot down again... Again? He hasn't been shot down before - If the "again" is in reference the balloon explosion, he made it back to base and landed so that doesn't really constitute being shot down.
  • on the 22nd 22 September - keeps the date presentation consistent
  • By this time, Noltenius had successfully claimed victory over another four enemy airplanes... Suggest "By this time, Noltenius had successfully claimed victory over destroyed another four enemy airplanes
  • this time within the Flying Circus The usage of "within" implies that JG6 was part of the Flying Circus. If so, I suggest mentioning that when JG6 is first identified.
  • his 21st and last credited victory needs to mention that it was an Airco de Havilland DH.4, otherwise the caption for the corresponding image is effectively unsourced. Thinking of the disputes over double claiming, should it state "last officially credited victory for clarity?
  • Pour le Mérite is italicised in the lead but not here.
  • He had flown 141 combat sorties by war's end. Suggest moving this sentence to close out this section, puts everything in chronological order.

Postwar life

edit

References

edit
  • Franks & Giblin needs to be listed in Sources section.
    • As it turned out, I could delete this. I went through and verified all cites while confirming Franks & Giblin, supplied print cites to replace website cites, and managed to eliminate Franks & Giblin.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit

Other stuff

edit
  • The image tags look OK, not that image copyright is a strength of mine.
  • The caption "Noltenius' weapon was a Fokker D.VII." I would think most people would think of a weapon as something that is held, pistol, rifle, knife. I suggest "Noltenius flew a Fokker D.VII during his career as a fighter pilot" or similar.
  • One dupe link: observation balloon

OK, that's my initial review done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Unrequested changes

edit

Addenda

edit

When I went back through the texts, I found that Noltenius had six victories awarded to other pilots--including three awarded to themselves by the very commanding officers making the decisions. No wonder Friedrich wanted a transfer or two!Georgejdorner (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is looking good, there is no doubt in my mind this is a GA. I just want to have another detailed pass of the article and changes before passing, will be a day or two more. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Georgejdorner, I made a couple of changes RE adding a translation to the text, I think it got overlooked. There is one further suggestion I would like you to consider but I don't view it as significant enough to hold up promotion and will be passing this as a GA. The suggestion is the "In the beginning" section ...on 3 November 1917. In February 1918,... The close usage of dates is a little jarring. I would suggest something like: "...on 3 November 1917. Four months later..." Regardless, I am passing as GA as noted above as I consider that this meets the necessary criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for a careful and attentive review. This talk page should serve as an example of both an unfair and rude review, contrasted to your skilled and perceptive reviewing.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friedrich_Noltenius/GA2&oldid=1002320213"