Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–45)/archive1

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 Karanacs 15:55, 17 August 2010 [1].

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)[edit]

Nominator(s): ' Perseus 71 ^talk 00:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is predominantly about the organizational structure of Luftwaffe during the period of 1933 to 1945. This was the period when an Air Force was not yet recognized as a strategic armed force. One of the lesser known facts is that Luftwaffe during this time was probably the only force to have a tank division of its own. Point is, this article goes into the distinctive organizational structure compared to other contemporary Air Forces of the time. At the same time its not going into the the history of Luftwaffe.

From assessment standpoint, this article has undergone A class review and has been assessed to meed those criteria. A Peer review was conducted and is now archived. The Article also underwent a proper CopyEd by an editor from WP:GoCE. I think that at this point its in a good enough shape that it could be reviewed to see if it can be a FA candidate.

P.S. The Sources of this article were extensively validated as part of the A Class review just concluded.' Perseus 71 ^talk 00:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is the "(1933–1945)" disambiguation necessary? There is no other "Organization of the Luftwaffe" article. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume that it's because it only covers the period 1933-1945 and not the organisation of the Luftwaffe since it was reformed in 1956. Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Originally this article was named just Organization of the Luftwaffe. But since modern Luftwaffe article was linked here, it was renamed with WWII in the end. However the period is under consideration is more than the period of the war, its better to provide specific period being covered. Besides, its also in line with the Luftwaffe History article. ' Perseus 71 ^talk 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Complete absence of the Seenotdienst. :/ Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It came under Luftwaffen Inspektion 16. I had not gone in the details in interest of keeping the article length under control. I can definitely add those details if there is a consensus. However adding brand new content while the review is in progress. Serious concerns were raised last time I added new content when FAR was in progress. ' Perseus 71 ^talk 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Seenotdienst made up the whole of Luftwaffen Inspektion 16—they were the same thing as far as I understand. I don't think anyone will complain if you add a link to Seenotdienst at the list entry for Luftwaffen Inspektion 16. Not a very big change to do that! Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. No that's not a big change. Its incorporated. ' Perseus 71 ^talk 20:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand the placement of ref 23a, is it there to support the above table. If so, why is it not place together with the two refs after the table heading Types of Geschwader and their purpose.? —P. S. Burton (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The change has been incorporated.

Oppose per criterion three:
- ~~File:Luftwaffe Organization.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP~~
  - Both the image description page as well as in the description in the article have been updated with the sources for this information.' Perseus 71 ^talk 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~File:DornierC-Legion.jpg - No significant contribution (NFCC#8); could be replaced by free alternative (NFCC#1).~~
  - Done. Image replaced with a free alternative.' Perseus 71 ^talk 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Chef einer Luftflotte Version 2.svg, File:Kommandeur einer Fliegerdivision.svg and File:Balkenkreuz.svg are derivative works; source of "own work" is incorrect. From what source were these traced/on what source were they based?Эlcobbola _talk 15:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - For Balkenkreuz, source has been added to the image description. The other two images are images of Flags. The author of these images, reproduced those flags. Can you kindly clarify for me what is needed ? ' Perseus 71 ^talk 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure how "From what source were these traced/on what source were they based" is unclear. The issues would be resolved by adding source information in the same manner as which you have (successfully) resolved the issue with the Balkenkreuz. Эlcobbola _talk 20:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have added source to the Description of Chef einer Luftflotte Version 2.svg. The other image is removed. My point is trying to understand was that, if its a reproduction of a flag, is there a need for explicit source ? I thought flags being well known didn't need sources. My apologies if I offended you. That was not my intention. ' Perseus 71 ^talk 02:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't find remarks offensive. The purpose of the source, beyond "mechanical" adherence to policy, is to allow verification of the provenience. For example, that the reproduced design is faithful to the original (not an interpretation), that the design is genuine (while perhaps obvious to you and me, other readers may be unfamiliar with flags/standards other than the generic Hakenkreuz), etc. Image issues resolved. Эlcobbola _talk 15:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
~~What makes http://www.ww2.dk/ a reliable source?~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- This website is not a blog. Its a collection of information collected from a lot of sources. The author of this website, Michael Holm has provided all his references on this page of the website. Hope, that helps to satisfy the criteria of a reliable source. ' Perseus 71 ^talk 20:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To determine the reliability 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. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Note that just listing the sources isn't enough, it needs to do that as well as others. As it stands, right now it's a WP:SPS, and the standards for those are pretty high. You need to show that the author is an expert in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Your point is well taken. I have reached out to Michael Holm to see if he could provide information to this effect. If I am not able to obtain that information in a timely manner, I will either replace or remove this source. Appreciate your patience. ' Perseus 71 ^talk 03:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have removed the concerned reference since I did not receive any response from Holm. Perseus 71 ^talk 00:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 08:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.