Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945)
I have recently expanded this article to a significant extent content wise. However I am still working on some of the tail end sections. Specifically the Field Divisions and the Paratroops. Since this article is about the Organization and not History of Luftwaffe during WW II, I have made an effort to stick to that aim. I will appreciate your thoughts along this line as well since I somehow feel that the Section on Finger Four Formation does not relate to that aim. Also if you could share your thoughts about which section or area has incomplete or insufficient information, those will be immensely appreciated. Lastly, please note that I am going to seek a GA review after I am done. So if there are any issues or areas from GA standpoint, I will appreciate if you could share the same.' Perseus 71 talk 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Nick-D
[edit]This is a very solid article, and Wikipedia needs more articles on thematic topics like this. My suggestions for improvements are:
- The article needs a bit of a copy edit
- The article needs to be checked for over-linking - Hermann Göring is linked on several occasions, for example
- Some material isn't cited
- The first para of the article should provide an overview of the entire article - at present it just jumps in at the start without providing an overview of the article's topic and what it covers
- The names of different levels of organisation shouldn't be bolded
- It would be helpful to explain why the division of the Luftwaffe between administrative and operational commands gave it a high degree of mobility
- The article states that "A Geschwader would be equivalant to a Wing in allied Airforce", but previously (and correctly) notes that USAAF Wings were the equivalent of British groups. As such, this sentence needs to be clarified - it seems that you're referring to a British wing
- The 'Aircraft Camouflage Schemes and Identification Markings' section seems to be beyond the scope of this article (which is already reasonably long and detailed) and should be separated into a new article Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)