User talk:Perseus71/Archives/2008/October

RE:Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War 2)

Thanks for the heads up on this one, it has a real good hope of becoming a GA in the furture. I would suggest to you right now that you nominate this one for a Wikipedia:Peer review, this is always a good step to take if you want to bring it up in the ranks. Im assuming you know this but I do not have the power to make any article a GA, A, or FA article. I can however help you in nominating these articles for GA, A or FA.

As far as my own quick review, I would:

• Get some extra sources (I relize this is very hard for pre 1980's subjects)
• Make sure the common reader, understands the material.

Otherwise this article is rich in supporting material, and has great potential. -Marcusmax (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

9 refs, is a good base however for an aticle the size of this one you need many more. Maybe one more paragraph for WP:LEAD. I would however reccomend reading up on WP:CITE for better ways to get more usage out of a single ref, and more citing info. If you would like I would be glad to add this one to a Peer Review. -Marcusmax (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the message. Have you decided on a final name for this yet? If not, I can easily move the article to Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) and the First World War one to Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War I), which probably fit better with naming conventions than the current names. Once that's done, I'll need to fix the links to the peer review etc. Please let me know what you decide. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I did move This page to a name Jagdgeschwader 1 Oesau. I was planning on moving the other to Jagdgeschwader 1 Flying Circus. Do you think that's good enough or we specifically need to include World War Numerals ?

Thanks perseus71 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you'd moved them :) I think we're better off using (World War I) and (World War II) as disambiguators as this will be much clearer to people who know nothing about the subject. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok Done! perseus71 (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, I'l;l update the links. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In the mean time I've added more to the Lead. At least 2-3 more referances & whole lot of more material. Does it now have a shot at getting nominated for Class A Review ?

Thanks perseus71 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow reply, I've been busy with coordinator stuff :) Perhaps you should address all the issues in the peer review before nominating for A-Class. If you like, once you've done that, I can check through the article and see what else needs fixing? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To my belief, I have addressed pretty much all the points raised in the Peer Review. Except for the comments of user:Jackyd101 on prose. Those I think I have addressed at least in part. It doesn't help that I am not native English speaker. Do you want me to go through another Peer Review or will you be able to review yourself ? Appreciate either way. Thanks perseus71 (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done a list on the peer review page of things that seem to be outstanding. On the article, I've also put the refs into alphabetical order and started copy-editing the lead section (please change anything you dislike). I suggest now may be a good time to get more people commenting on the peer review. Best is to put a message like:

[heading] Comments please: Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

I am working on taking this article to A-Class and it is currently undergoing a peer review. All comments (and help) will be very much appreciated. [Sign]

in the Milhist German, World War II and military aviation task force talk pages. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

Are you okay with the list? Does any of it need clarifying? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up. I posted the messages like you suggested. I am fine with the list except the part about de-linking dates. Some of the points on the list were already addressed as ::part of the original feedback. I guess you were consolidating them. I do have to address the point about page numbers. I was following the Cite book ::and Template:Cite web. Hence didn't include page numbers. I ended up getting notes that looked like ^ a,b,c,d,e Author, year for 5 of my citations. ::I am adding the page numbers now. That I hope will separate the citations. Since you have edited the Lead, do you think its still not explaining what ::the article covers ?

Lastly I saw majority of the articles Blue Linked the Dates. Why do we need to de-link the dates ?

Thanks once again. perseus71 (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't absolutely need to de-link the dates yet but it will need doing at some stage. Linking dates has been abandoned (see WP:MOSNUM) and they are gradually being removed.

Just a reminder that page numbers go into the ref (ie Weal (1998), pp 23-25) and not the source. It is usual by the way to mark the cite templates with the language used if the language is not English. The paramter is |language= German .

Anyhow, good work! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As to citations, I am now switching to the Style followed by B-17 Flying Fortress, a featured article. Which is to give all relevant pages (PP. =) ::::in References. But follow (Weal (1998), pp 23-25) for individual citations. About the dates, I will De-link them completely. Also I will follow ::::European pattern of DD-MON-YYYY since this is a European article. perseus71 (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've started doing the citations. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Looks like we're tripping over each other. I didn't realise we were editing at the same time. Sorry... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I noticed that too. I have stopped touching the citations and have reversed my changes. Currently I am almost done with De-linking Dates.

correction- I have totally stopped my edits. Don't want to overwrite your work !!!perseus71 (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Anyhow, I've taken the refs as far as I can go at the moment. This has thrown up a lot of missing page numbers, which I've listed on the peer review page. I'm going to be very busy for the next week or so with Milhist stuff but I'll try to keep an eye on things. The next thing to do is a major copy-edit: one objective is to reduce the amount of jargon. I'll do that, if you like, but it might be a bit of a wait :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And while I think of it, the web sources will need proper referencing too. (see {{Web cite}}). Publisher, date retrieved etc. See Hamlet or Emily Dickinson for examples, they have the widest variety of refs I can think of. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of "Jargon" that should be reduced ? I'll certainly deal with the Page Numbers. Thanks. perseus71 (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The complaint (from Jackyd101) was specifically about the amount of the German technical expressions. These might be better in English (where an English equivalent exists) followed by the German word in brackets after the first usage.

Could I nag you to start using edit summaries please? It makes it much easier to see where you're up to if you leave a couple of words as a note. You can set Wikipedia to remind you by ticking "[]Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in the "Editing" section of "My preferences". --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will try my best to change the German words to English. As to the Summaries, point noted. I will be more particular about them. Yes I have set the preference now.

UPDATE - Pretty much all citations have page numbers assigned. The problem is for {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) citation. Those are webpages that don't have page numbers. Likewise for {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help) where an extract from the journal is posted on a webpage. Those don't have page numbers either. Any help is greatly appreciated. perseus71 (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) Okay, I'll have a look. incidentally, when using <ref name = >, you only need to put the display text in the first instance. Thanks for edit summaries, by the way. Much easier now:) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to reduce the jargon is a major edit. Could you take look at that as well ? Thanks perseus71 (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unit badge copyright

Thanks for the question - not my area of expertise and I would suggest asking the question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I dont think they are in the Public Domain as we dont know who created the images on the website. I suggest that you could use use {{non-free logo}}, refer to Wikipedia:Logos for more information. Sorry I cant be more helpful. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2008

If you look at other logos listed in Category:Non-free logos it might give some ideas on what is needed, they are some unit badges like Image:11 Flottille Emblem.png. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ranks

Hi Perseus71; the reason I amended the ranks was twofold; most of the ranks were already linked to the relevent wikipedia entries, and equivalents were already early in the article. Reading through it therefore I thought the constant repetition fragmented the narrative to a certain extent. Similarly issues with 'geschwader'(fighter gruppe), 'staffel'(squadron) etc. Hope that OK Harryurz (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Further reference to the rank issue; I can understand people's differing opinions on what should be (or shouldnt be) standardised on , but converting German military ranks all to anglisised ranks opens a huge 'can of worms'. Some ranks have no real counterpart in US or English military, while the direct equal ranks are different for airforces and land forces. For instance, Oberfeldwebel can be interpreted as 'Technical Sergeant' in the US, or 'Master Sergeant', or 'Flight Sergeant' in the case of the RAF!! Which can legitimately be used? Surely much better to link to the equivalent rank when first used in the article , then retain the true germanic version. Thanks Harryurz (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

JG1

Hey, looked over Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) again, and I am impressed with all the differences I see. I don't know if this has been brought up but the lead might be too long, so see WP:LEAD. Otherwise it is really getting up there, you can probably do a GAC in a week or two. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Looking for help on Guidelines

An interesting question. My personal view is that, since the un-parenthesized version is the one used subsequently—in other words, if you mention "A (B)", then the next use will have only "A"—the foreign term should be in parentheses, since most readers will feel more comfortable with the English translations in the rest of the text. Of course, if English historiography on this topic prefers a different style, then that would be something to follow instead.

Another option you might want to consider is to simply reduce the use of ranks. In most cases, the rank of an individual is not of particular importance except in a biographical article. It's perfectly fine, in my opinion, to change "Oberst Walter Oesau was sick..." to "Oesau was sick...", and so forth; and using simple names both avoids the rank translation issue and tightens up the writing.

Hope that helps! Kirill ^(prof) 00:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd probably go with giving the English version preference, simply to reduce the number of foreign terms sprinkled through the text; but it's something of an arbitrary decision in any case. Kirill ^(prof) 14:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)