Talk:Heinz Schnabel and Harry Wappler escape attempt

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heinz Schnabel and Harry Wappler escape attempt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I will do this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

We have the guts of a good, albeit small, article here. My initial thoughts are that the structure is the area that requires the most improvement so I am going to do some suggestions around this aspect primarily along with a few other comments on things that have caught my eye. Detailed comments may follow once the structure has been sorted.

• Rather than the "Initial capture..." heading, I suggest "Background".

• @Zawed: Done by Supraios. Kges1901 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• What kind of aircraft was Schnabel flying? (presumably a 109 but should be stated for certainty if it can be sourced).

• Added. Kges1901 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• The material on Wappler is disproportionate to Schabel and should be trimmed. Eg some of the details of the flight leading to his capture, names of his crew. The point being the first loss due to barrage balloons is interesting and should stay. Where does Harry come from?

• Removed crew names and removed mention of 'Kurt' because most of the cited sources only call Wappler Harry, except for von Mullenheim-Rechberg who calls him 'Karl Wappler', presumably erroneously. The Wappler details just seems longer because there was more to his downing, but the same amount of specificity is also given for Schnabel Kges1901 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think there should be a separate section for Shap Wells, with location information, when Schnable and Wappler arrived, maybe its size (in number of inmates). In the current Wappler section it is referred to as a hotel and given a number; this may need explaining. (I've done some googling, found this link which may be useful, see the bit about the U-Boat hotel.

• The exact date that Shnabel and Wappler arrived isn't given in the cited sources.

• But what about the other details for Shap Wells? Zawed (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• The Shap Wells hotel has secondary source coverage in at least one academic book [1]. So I might just create an article and link it from here. Kges1901 (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• I still think some context for Shap Wells is necessary here. Zawed (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've rephrased it to mention that it was requisitioned, and that's why it had a number. Kges1901 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm still not happy with this. I consider that there should be a distinct section for the POW camp and a bit more explanation about it. I see that the nominator hasn't participated in this review. It shouldn't fall to other editors to do the necessary revision work. Zawed (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sources - not sure why you have chapter titles in some citations, they don't seem necessary.

• Looking at the ISBNs, the books for which chapter titles are provided were cited using the ebook version so doing some mind reading here, L293D included them for additional verification because ebooks don't have the same type of page numbers Kges1901 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hope that is enough for you to make a start. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Noticed a dupe link: leutnant (and it should be lower case rather than capitalised as it is at present). Zawed (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Fixed. Kges1901 (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Status query

Zawed, Kges1901, where does this review currently stand? The last comment and response was made nearly four weeks ago, the same day as the most recent edit to the article referred to in that response. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have been remiss in not coming back to this. I still have a structure/content issue with the article and have reiterated this above. I'm inclined to fail this in the next few days as I don't think it should fall on other editors, such as Kges1901, to do the nominator's work (who hasn't participated in this review at all). Zawed (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. In the end, I just do not have enough interest in this subject to make the significant changes. L293D: Now that you are back, would you be willing to participate in this review? Kges1901 (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• There has been no action here for a couple of days so am failing this now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Data on Schnabel and Wappler

Please refer to Luftwaffe Officer Career Summaries for inserting more personal information about our two protagonists into the article. You can find an online version here (Sections S-Z): http://www.ww2.dk/lwoffz.html Best, Supraios (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heinz Schnabel and Harry Wappler escape attempt/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 18:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• daring, but ultimately unsuccessful "daring" is an opinion and shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia voice, see WP:EDITORIALIZING.
  • Done.
• I would suggest "attempted to fly to the continent" in the lede and "For their daring, but ultimately unsuccessful escape attempt" in the body. In the lede, "attempted" implies it was unsuccessful and in the body it's already clear that it wasn't.
  • Done.
• neutral Eire (Ireland) Just "neutral Ireland", per WP:IRE-IRL.
  • Done.
• Holland Do you actually mean Holland? Otherwise use Netherlands, with no link per MOS:OVERLINK
  • Done.
• forced to land This implies something else; they were in control of the aircraft and decided to land.
  • Done.
• six confirmed 'kills' Should be "six enemy aircraft confirmed destroyed" or similar to avoid slang that may confuse non-experts.
  • Done.
• Henry L. deZeng IV—what makes this a reliable source? Anyone can make up a PDF and post on the web. buidhe 18:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if Classic Publications is reilable, but an author search on google books shows he's writen published books on the subject. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    • According to Worldcat the other publications were under "Midland", which like Classic is an imprint of Crecy Publishing. This does not convince me that any of them are RS. buidhe 15:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Yeah, unfortunate, but you're right. I've removed the two sentences that were sourced by that guy. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Per previous GA review, I'm not sure what the blockquote in "Harry Wappler" section is adding to the article. It doesn't seem sufficiently relevant to the escape. buidhe 15:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Done.

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 Yoninah (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A Miles Magister

• ... that in 1941, two German POWs escaped from their camp and stole a plane (pictured) from a RAF base to reach the continent? Source: the article
  • ALT1:that in 1941, two German POWs escaped and stole a plane (pictured) from a RAF base to reach the continent? Source: the article

• Reviewed: Battle of Drepana

Improved to Good Article status by L293D (talk). Self-nominated at 20:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC).

• Approve ALT1 This Good Article was promoted recently enough, is definitely more than long enough (not sure if a GA can even be below that limit), and it reads neutrally. Both hooks are below the limit in terms of length, so that's good, and I find them to be an interesting enough fact about the topic. The QPQ has been done and the image proposed is public domain, used in the article, and looks fine at this size requirement. Everything looks good to go. Silverseren^C 22:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Battleship Bismarck

Hey, L293D, I got this Bismarck book to check the name of Alan Garydon, which I wondered might have been Graydon, and I'm not finding this incident on pages 62-63. Pages 62-63 are in a chapter called Sea Trials and Battle Practice. Do you have the copy you were using available, or remember what chapter it might have been in? The one I have has a publication date of 1990 and says 'New and Expanded Edition.' I tried looking in the index but don't see any mention of the three men. --valereee (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: The book I cite has ISBN 978-1-61251-294-5; I assume the book you cite has ISBN 978-0-87021-096-9. Both books are titled the same, and are by the same author, but the book I cite is from 2012, whereas the other book is from 1980. This is the book I cite; is this the book you have? I have to admit I did make a glaring error in the book cite template, I have fixed it now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

lol L293D, the one I have is ISBN 0-87021-027-0 which is this from 1990. So I guess this incident must have been something completely new added into a much later addition! At any rate, the name Garydon isn't a typo, or at least not our typo? If you have the book in hand, can you tell what he's using for sources for that detail? --valereee (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I just realized Alan Garydon isn't mentioned in Bismark, I've removed his name. I checked my other sources, but I don't see where that name came from. Hope that settles this. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Bummer! I hate it when that happens! --valereee (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)