Jump to content

Talk:Adolf Galland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk | contribs) at 18:01, 7 January 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleAdolf Galland has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 14, 2010Good article nomineeListed
February 25, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
April 28, 2012WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

Change of infobox

Adolf Galland served in the position/office of Inspector of Fighters, therefore the infobox should be changed to Infobox officeholder, as to better show that position/office. Proposal can be seen here.Skjoldbro (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary reversing this change, I think the officeholder template is generally (and logically) used for holders of public office (i.e. politicians). It makes sense for former military people who held high public office, e.g. soldiers who became governors, president, etc, but not I think for those who only held significant military positions. For instance I've brought several chiefs of the Royal Australian Air Force to Featured status, and simply placed that position at the top of Commands field in the military person infobox, and that's always been considered satisfactory. Now you might argue that some high staff positions should be given a new Positions or Postings field within the military person infobox, but I don't think we should skew things by using what's primarily a civilian infobox for people whose notable positions were purely military. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Good Article'?

Why is this listed as a Good Article? It's not a good article. It's overlength, it's bitty, it's so badly written that it often reads as though it's been translated (badly) from a language other than English, and, like so many Wiki bios of Nazi military officers, it carries the stench of hagiography. I've even just had to correct a completely false claim about the reason why Galland lost his temper and stormed off the set of the film Battle of Britain. As everybody knows, and as the cited source states, Galland did not object to 'his' character, Major Falke, giving the Nazi salute to Goering. He objected to the actor Peter Hagen, playing Albert Kesselring -- the actual convicted Nazi war criminal Albert Kesselring (ask any Italian what sort of person Kesselring was, although his Wiki bio of course makes out that he was just fine) -- giving the Nazi salute to Goering. The article as it stood sought to imply that Galland got his way, but he didn't. The scene remains in the film and Galland backed down and did not take his name off the credits. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost as badly written as your post. The sources are reflected in the article. Everything else is opinion. Dapi89 (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 April 1941, Galland took off with lobster and champagne to celebrate General Theo Osterkamp's birthday at Le Touquet

According this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-nAVhtnHQM) Galland didn't took off with champagne because they would explode in the air. He took lobsters and oysters. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]