Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:04, 10 January 2009 [1].

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

edit
Nominator(s): Perseus71 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... This article has passed A Class Review. For Wikipedia:MIL the article has reached Class A status. A formal Copy-edit through MilHist Copy Edit Department was completed as suggested in the A Class Review process. A Peer review was completed in past and all those comments have been since incorporated. Its been archived here. I originally was planning to stick with A class. However now that I think more, I feel it deserves a shot at being FAC for the reason that There are very few articles in its class that have had reached this status. According to FA Class list, there are a total of 37 articles in all and predominantly Military related articles. Luftwaffe related articles are very few. I am not stating that this is the reason. (Lack of articles) Please note that being numbered One in among the wings was a big deal but to be named after its Wing Commander was considered a really big honor that very few people received. I think that this article deserves a shot on merit alone. Perseus71 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I noticed no major problems with the article during my copyediting, however there ar two things;
    • In the "Wartime history" section the pictures of people are a little small; on one you can't even see the caption
    • In the "Aircraft of Jagdgeschwader 1" there are two pictures, a BF109E and a Fw109A, that have no border or caption.
  • Apart from that I wholeheartedly support--Patton123 20:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the points have been incorporated. That was a good catch. Thanks Patton 123. Perseus71 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the moment on 1(a) (prose) grounds. Comments: In the lead alone I found several examples of awkward writing. For example:
    • Opening sentence has a double meaning. A wing is either a fighting unit, or it's a piece of an aircraft. It becomes obvious which meaning you intend, but you should avoid the initial confusion. Suggestion: Jagdgeschwader 1 (JG 1) was a German World War II fighter aircraft unit or "wing".
    • Second sentence: the English eqivalents rather than the German originals should be parenthesised, but personally I would do away with the parenthesis, which make the text read jerkily. Suggest: The name derives from Jag, meaning "hunting" and Geschwader, meaning "wing".
    • Unnecessary close repetition: "Originally formed...JG 1 was one of the original groups..." Suggest replace "Originally" with "First". I also think the latter part of this sentence would read better as "...created by the Luftwaffe as part of its expansion plans".
    • Starting two sentences in the same short paragraph with "Like" does not read well; in any event the second of these should read "Like that of..." but it would be better to try and replace one of the "likes". Also, "7" needs to be written out.
    • Repetition of "units" in last sentence of first para.
    • Second paragraph: "..through until..." - you can have either one, but not both.
    • Some use of pronouns is necessary in the second paragraph, to avoid over-repetition of "JG 1"
    • The opening of the last paragraph is very clumsy: "In summer of 1944, the "Oesau" suffix was added after its then wing commander, (Geschwaderkommandant) Colonel (Oberst) Walter Oesau (127 kills) was killed in action over the Ardennes." Punctuation, the meaning of "its", and the over-use again of parentheses, all need to be considered.
  • I have not read in detail beyond the lead, but a little way down in the main text I saw: "On 31 March 1943, JG 1 was split to form the new JG 11. I./JG 1 became II./JG 11 on 1 April 1943 and III./JG 1 became I./JG 11. IV./JG 1 was re-designated as I./JG 1. A new group was added to JG 1 as III./JG 1." This seems to be over-detailing beyond the limits of what is understandable. Also, since this happened in 1943, I found it strange to read about it in a section titled "Formation history"; surely, four years into the war, this is part of reorganisation rather than formation?

I don't want to put a damper on an article that has obviously been researched diligently, but at present the prose is not up to FA standard and needs some considerable work. I will be happy to review the oppose when the necessary copyediting has been completed throughout the article. Brianboulton (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good, positive response to my criticisms of the lead. I have done a bit of punctuation and copyediting to enhance it further. Can I suggest two further improvements: First, you say "the Oesau" suffix was added, but you don't say what it was added to. I suggest you say "the Oesau suffix was added to the unit's title". Second, is it really necessary to use German ranks, which look particularly awkward in italics? I'd just use the English equivalents, so the start of the last lead paragraph would read: "...after the unit's commander at that time, Colonel Walter Oseau..." etc. If you do want to keep the German rnks, then at least lose the italics. I have struck my oppose; as soon as I can I will go through and give comments on the remaining text (this may be a few days). Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the comments are incorporated. As to the ranks, I have removed the italics in the lead and will follow it in the main body. I am aware that WP:MIL requires using English words wherever possible. Replacing German ranks with English version had been discussed before but a consensus has not emerged. One of the main reasons is that some of the German ranks have no real counterpart in US or UK military Ex. Unteroffizier. For others, there are multiple equivalent ranks for air forces or land forces. Ex. Oberfeldwebel can be interpreted as 'Technical Sergeant' in the US, as 'Master Sergeant', or 'Flight Sergeant' for RAF. Which version can one use ? I am also aware that this is English language Wikipedia. But then I really do not want to confuse the reader. I hope you understand. Perseus71 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not an expert on this topic. But based on all the information I have received, support personnel were part of the unit. Given Luftwaffe's structure of the time based on Vertical Luftflotte, I am not sure if there was any separate organization for Support personnel. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • The "II.Gruppe Jagdgeschwader" ref is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this site a reliable source?
  • This web page is part of a website maintained by User:Klaiber. It does not have a known publisher. As to the reliability, the page is based on two separate books as mentioned on the article's Talk page. Those books are Defenders of the Reich : Jagdgeschwader 1 by Eric Mombeek and Jagdgeschwader 1 und 11 : Einsatz in der Reichsverteidigung von 1939 bis 1945 by Jochen Prien. Both the books have been listed in my References. I believe this should make the page a reliable reference. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use the books themselves then, rather than using them secondhand through a self-published website? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the books are listed in your references, did you use them? I guess I'm confused as to how if they are used in the references, you can't just cite the books direct. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the books I have listed are used. Each citation refers to the books by the Page Numbers in accordance with WP:CITE. Specifically to the two Books used by the website, Defenders of the Reich : Jagdgeschwader 1 and Jagdgeschwader 1 und 11 : Einsatz in der Reichsverteidigung von 1939 bis 1945, I don't have those books. Hence I can't cite them. I had added them simply to support the information used from the website. If this is not following Wikipedia standard then I would be happy to remove those two books from the list of References. Perseus71 (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you did not physically consult the books for hte information, but are citing them because the website cited them, then no, you shouldn't use those citations. See Wikipedia:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which deals with this sort of issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greg Goebel's Public Domain webpage cites three different sources for the information presented. All of these are reliable sources. Besides his Vector Site has been extensively used on Wikipedia as maintained in this article. Many other examples can be found on Wikipedia where his work has been extensively utilized. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concerned article has mentioned its sources, which are.
  • THE WARPLANES OF THE THIRD REICH by William Green, Doubleday & Company, 1970.
  • WORLD WAR II FIGHTING JETS by Jeffrey Ethell & Alfred Price, AIRLIFE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 1994.
  • WARPLANES OF THE LUFTWAFFE, edited by David Donald, AIRTIME PUBLICATIONS LTD, 1994.
  • Would that satisfy the requirement ? Perseus71 (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're using it just because the information is presented in a table? Why not just use the primary sources, rather than a self-published site?
  • The transition information is too fragmented to make any sort of sense in the primary sources. For Example, The appointment Date for one of the Wing commanders would be in one book and Transition Date in some other book. This will then be repeated for all the commanders. Hope that illustrates the point. Perseus71 (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This webpage is maintained by a very respected author whose other book is cited as well. This website is actually cited in a section that has been commented out as part of GA review of this article. You may wish to visit the same for details. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above about reliability of sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just backing up more reliable sources, there is no need for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have tried my best to comply with the guidelines. If you could point out any specific instance, I'd be happy to correct it. As to the image layout, to my knowledge the images comply with MOS:IMAGES. The largest block of images in the "Unit emblem and color schemes" section use {{ImageStackRight}}. That combined with section titles so close, tend to give the appearance of more white space. This article was copy edited by User:Patton123 for WP:MHL#COPYEDIT criteria. Their comments are in this review. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: well-researched and comprehensive, but in need of attention to the prose. I dipped into it and found "The spitfires shot down 1.and 2./JG 1 squadrons at the Twente airport as they took off for the loss of two. Of note was the loss of Unteroffizier Günter Sill of I./JG 1 flying Fw 190D-9. Ihlefeld threatened to court martial Major G. Capito the new leader of I./JG 1. But wasn't able to do so in the process of transferring to Eastern front.In Poland,..."
The first sentence isn't clear - does it mean the spitfires destroyed two entire squadrons for the loss of only two of their number? Why did Ihlefeld so threaten? ".But" should be "but" with no period and there is a space missing before "In Poland". If this isn't typical and/or other such issues are fixed get back to me and I'll take longer look. Ben MacDui 18:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the spitfires destroyed two entire squadrons while loosing only two of their own. I have made it more explicit. Ihlefeld threatened to Court martial for this loss of two entire squadrons. Rest is incorporated. To my belief, this is not typical. This specific piece of information was added only very recently. Perseus71 (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formation history

  • I prefer "Messerschmitt Bf 109" to "Bf 109" - the average reader will have no idea what the latter is.
  • "Bf 109E Emils" Emil meant nothing to me either until I followed the link. In fact, I think the last two sentences of this para would be better as "He set upon modernizing this unit by re-equipping it with the Emils version of the Bf 109E, a process that was complete by June 1939.", which avoids short sentences and duplicate " re-equipping"
  • "On 5 January 1942, Oberstleutnant Schumacher transitioned the command of JG 1 to Major Erich von Selle". "transitioned" may be military jargon, US English or similar, but British English would be "handed over".
  • Both terms are incorporated. 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The last three sentences seem to have escaped from the lead - they don't have anything to do with the formation.

Reorganization

  • This is not your fault but the numbering system makes this very heard to read. I wonder if it is permissible to avoid some of the "JG1"s and /or occasionally use the full name e.g. "Two groups of JG 1 (I. and III.) were transferred to JG 11. Group IV. was re-designated as I./JG 1. Thus Jagdgeschwader 1 was left with two operational groups, I. and II. A new group was formed in Leeuwarden, Netherlands and added as III./JG 1."
(It would be even easier on the eye without some of the periods after the Roman numerals, but I doubt that is acceptable.)
  • "Major Karl-Heinz Leesmann who died on 25 July" - of that year?
  • "JG 1 Wing Commander Erich Mix was replaced by Major Hans Philipp as Geschwaderkommodore of JG 1." This reads as if we know about Mix, but we don't. Did he take over from Von Selle?
  • "In early 1944, the Reich Air Ministry (Reichsluftministerium - RLM) reinforced day fighter units engaged in the Defense of Reich (Reichsverteidigung)." Why is this relevant to this section? Ben MacDui 19:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organization structure

  • Geschwader should be linked on its first appearance rather than later.
  • Geschwaderkommodore, Oberstleutnant, Oberst, Staffelkapitän, and Oberleutnant are not italicised
I now see User:Brianboulton asked you not to do this. Oh well, you can't please everyone. So long as you are consistent and can provide a justification for the usage... Ben MacDui 09:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider making "for example Adolf Galland became Geschwaderkommodore of JG 26 in August 1940 while still a Major, the equivalent of an RAF Squadron Leader." a footnote as it isn't about JG1 as such.
  • No citations at all in this section.
  • Changes incorporated. As to the citations, this is an extract of the parent article. So I believe that article is the source. I just personally am not aware of citing Wikipedia articles. Perseus71 (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't cite Wikipedia as a source, but nor do I think you can have an entire sub-section without a citation. I note the main article has only 1.5 citations in total and none for this section. You may need some assistance from your WP:MIL colleagues here. Ben MacDui 09:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flight JG 1

  • (Stabschwarm) is repeated and linked again.
  • Oberstleutnant is linked again
  • There is no need to keep repeating the German word after the English e.g. "Thus was born the Headquarters Flight (Geschwaderstab)". You told us the HQ flight was the Geschwaderstab a couple of lines earlier.

Group I./JG 1

  • " I./JG 1 consisted of one Headquarters Flight and Squadrons 1./JG 1, 2./JG 1 and 3./JG 1." Can this not be written " I./JG 1 consisted of one Headquarters Flight and Squadrons 1., 2. and 3." It's obvious they are in JG 1.
  • " I./JG 1 was formed from JG 2 and located in Jesau (modern Nivenskoye) in East Prussia." Why are we being told this again, with duplicate links? Ben MacDui 12:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Having been asked to comment further I do so with reluctance. The article has clearly involved a lot of work, and I have enjoyed finding out more about the subject matter. However, as I look further down the page it seems that what I am engaging in is a copy-editing exercise, and this is not my strong suit. (For example I notice that a sentence I suggested be dramatically reduced in complexity is, in its altered form, still described as being part of an "impenetrable" paragraph below). I believe the article needs a comprehensive copy edit from a skilled person, and preferably one who does not have a deep knowledge of military affairs. If this can be achieved please feel free to get back to me. Ben MacDui 21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — The "Organization Structure" section seems incredibly crowded with the way you've jammed the tables in there. Might I suggest separating them from the prose by putting them at the bottom of each sub-section and centering them? I'd suggest something along the lines of what you've done with the Group I./JG 1 table, except centered. Doing that also would allow you to spread out the aircraft profile images you've got crammed into the unit emblem section and give that section a little more room to fit in all of the emblem images without forcing them down into the next section, as they are currently. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some work to be done here! Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose: I earlier registered a tentative oppose on the grounds of prose issues in the lead. These were speedily resolved, so I struck the oppose, pending reading of the remainder of the article. After a delay I started to do this, but soon found myself bogged down and scratching my head. Here are a few stumbling blocks:-

  • Formation history:
    • "Even those failed to materialize, and several groups (Gruppen) were activated". The "even" is redundant and anyway smacks of POV; it is not entirely clear what failed to materialize; you have adapted an Am-Eng spelling for an article which assume is in Brit-Eng (the date formats are, anyway); the connection between the two parts of the sentence is not clear - the impression is that "groups" of an undescribed nature were activated as a result of the failure of certain plans to materialise. Is this so?
    • It continues: "As part of this policy..." Which policy is this?
    • The second paragraph states "In May 1939 the entire organisation of the Luftwaffe was changed". In the previous paragraph we were reading "In the summer of 1939", so there is some chronological confusion. This is made worse, later, by "On 7 May..." without specifying a year. This must be 1940.
    • In the last paragraph you mention things which happened as late as 1944 – in a section called "Formation history"?
  • Reorganisation: Sorry, I find this section impenetrable.
    • This paragraph:-

Similar to its parent Jagdgeschwader 2, Jagdgeschwader 1 (JG 1) was designated to be a "donor" unit in forming a new unit. Given the large territory JG 1 had to cover, it was decided to form a new unit called Jagdgeschwader 11 (JG 11). On 31 March 1943, JG 1 was split to form the new unit. Two groups of JG 1 (I. and III.) were transferred to JG 11. Group IV. was re-designated as I./JG 1. Thus Jagdgeschwader 1 was left with two operational groups, I. and II. A new group was formed in Leeuwarden, Netherlands and added as III./JG 1. This group was headed by Major Karl-Heinz Leesmann who died on 25 July 1943.

      • ""Similar to" presumably means "In a similar manner to..."
      • The multiple repetition of terms, particularly "unit", makes for difficult reading
      • The distinction between a "unit" and a "group" is not clear.
      • The mix of Arabic and Roman numerals is somewhat confusing. I suppose this can't be helped, if the units and subdivisions were designated in this way, but it requires prose of great clarity to avoid a total head-spinning experience.

I have not ventured much beyond this point, except to note reference to the RAF rank of "Group Commander". The RAF has Wing Commanders and Group Captains, but not Group Commanders.

A general concern to me is the steady growth of this article since its nomination. During that period it has expanded by 1,500 words; it was long (8,200 words) to begin with, and is now super-long at almost 10,000 words. Most of the problems I have identified in the sections I've read arise, in my wiew, from over-detailing, and I suspect that this may be an issue through the article. I have great respect for the research, but for this to be fruitful the article must be more accessible to the general reader than it is at present. It is with great reluctance that I reinstate my oppose, but I feel that the article needs significant prose attention before it can be promoted.

Sorry, I forgot to sign above post. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jagdgeschwader_1_(World_War_II)/archive1&oldid=1145611919"