Talk:Jagdgeschwader 11/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

This article still needs a lot of work. I'd strongly suggest a MilHist peer review and then resubmit it for a GAR.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Copy edit needed. I'd suggest asking for help from somebody in the Guild of copyeditors. I've edited the lead and the first several sections to give an idea of how things should be done. Please give the English term and then the German one using the code and format that I used. This means that you won't need to italicize the term when doing so. Then you can use the German term freely, in italics, of course. You're overlinking; you only need to link the first time a term or phrase is used.
CopyEd request raised. working through the overlinking as of now. '  Perseus 71 ^talk 03:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SMasters has completed Copyed in response to my request. Kindly share your thoughts. I had waited on the overlinking for the same. Will continue as needed. '  Perseus 71 ^talk 01:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done An honest effort is made to scan and removal of overlinking. Please let me know if you find any additional linking. '  Perseus 71 ^talk 01:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance:
References require place of publication, not pages (unless a newspaper or magazine article) or ref (which will not work unless enclosed in ref tags). You've combined several footnotes, please do so for the remainder to shorten the article.
Combining the footnotes for the same page numbers of a book. WIP '  Perseus 71 ^talk
Done Completed. '  Perseus 71 ^talk 01:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Very episodic with accounts of various individual battles. No comprehensive account.
I see your point. Let me see what if any I could do about it. I am having two thoughts about it though as I wonder if someone would want to know individual skirmishes ?' Perseus 71 ^talk 02:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a difficult problem for air units, which is why I haven't attempted to try to write an article on any. The individual engagements are important, and should be used to illustrate how they fought, but you still need to present data showing how the unit is performing. Michael Holm's website has official strength data for most units from early 1942, with which you can gauge the unit's gains and losses month-by-month, but you'd still need to cross-reference that against claims to gain a total picture of how well it is doing in shooting-down enemy aircraft vs. its own losses.
I have tried to address the episodic nature as best I can. You are right I have only picked major engagements for that reason and to show how they fought. I had tried extensive referencing Michael Holm's website in past for JG 1. But during the reviews, there were strong concerns over that website's validity as a primary source. My biggest problem is that I do not have a credible source for the JG 11's score tally progress. What I have got so far is already in there. Will try to introduce some of the strength depletion. ' Perseus 71 ^talk 17:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Very little data on losses, strength, and unit movements. No consultation of German-language sources where such data may be found.
I believe I may not have explicitly called out unit movements per se, but I have certainly covered individual Group level movements where I can. As to the losses, I have explicitly mentioned losses from Operation Bodenplatte. Also I do have a section dedicated to Notable losses. I am actually in position to provide an exhaustive list of MIA & KIAs for this unit based on Eric Mombeek's excellent [page]. But the I'd not want someone to raise the points that,

QUOTE - List of casualties should only contain notable (i.e. they either have or should have a Wikipedia article about them) casualties. Not everyone who dies in a war is notable (again intending no disrespect to anyone). If a list of all casualties is to be include—which is, in my view, a big if, given that Wikipedia is intended for a general audience—it really should be all casualties, not just the casualties from a particular operation. So in order of my preference:

  1. List of Notable casualties only
  2. No list (with discussion of notable casualties in the text)
  3. List of all casualties, not just some from one operation

- END QUOTE Its just something I have gone down the road before.' Perseus 71 ^talk 02:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bodenplatte is only one small piece of JG 11's operations; a more comprehensive total of losses is needed so a reader can say that the unit claimed x kills, but lost y aircraft doing so. This would give a rough measure of effectiveness. I'm not interested in ace losses, or even individual names, except in how they affected the units by depriving them of experienced leaders as happened in the last half of '44. IMO, there tends to be way too much attention paid to aces in airwar histories that focus on the Luftwaffe. And you're using a bunch of references that play right into that with the Osprey books. The Prien books are the best counterweight to that, but they're very expensive and are probably hard to get through Inter-Library Loan, although I did get the JG 77 volumes through ILL once.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid all the major libraries in my part of the world do not carry this book :( ' Perseus 71 ^talk 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
More pictures are needed. One each of the Bf 109 and Fw 190, preferably in JG 11 colors, would be a minimum.
Given the short lifespan of the unit, PD images of the unit aircraft are hard to come by. What I have used are from Bundesarchive on Commons. Will certainly add one each of the Bf 109 and Fw 190. May not be possible to add those with JG 11 colors or emblem. (wasn't able to find on Commons.) ' Perseus 71 ^talk 03:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry too much about the JG 11 colors, I'd be surprised if any were available. But the types of aircraft that it flew are definitely needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done ' Perseus 71 ^talk 02:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I still haven't gone through the full article so more lengthy comments later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you to the end of the month to complete the copyedit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, I'd strongly suggest that you submit future articles to an Aviation or Milhist B-class assessment rather than go straight for GA from start or C-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has come a long way since it was submitted, but it is still not complete and fails criteria 3.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]