This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from Max Näther appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 November 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that First World War flying aceMax Näther was appointed as commander of his squadron at age 18?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
I inherited http://wwi-cookup.com/ from a prior editor. I backed it up with another cite as can be seen. Should have deleted it at that time. Thanks for the heads up.
The Aerodrome has a bibliography, which by consensus makes a website reliable. We in the WWI aviation history community established that some years ago in a consensus. Also, some of the world's most published and greatest authorities on WWI aviation are behind the site--Greg VanWyngarden, for instance. These are the same historians that we cite when they publish in print. It makes no sense to say they are reliable in print, but not on the internet. Kinda reminiscent of the argument that paper encyclopedias are better than Wikipedia.
I realize that, in my haste, I have been ambiguous. I am not plumping for WP as a self-referential source. And I realize that WP has to legally cover its butt by insisting that, overall, changes will happen. However, the concept that only print sources are grist for an internet encyclopedia goes against the flow of events. MSM is fading as Internet news picks up. Information storage is rising into the Cloud. WP is pretty unchanging except for growth; not much deletion going on.
The Aerodrome website has a bibliography page buried deep within. Pain in the tail to find. Some biography pages in the site cite the source(s) at the foot--where the historians cite the very books I use when I can find them.
"Max Näther was born 24 August 1899 in Tepliwoda, Silesia" → "Max Näther was born on 24 August 1899 in Tepliwoda, Silesia"
It's good either way, but I gave you your 'on'.
"Max Näther joined the German army in 1914" → "Näther joined the German army in 1914"
'He' for 'Max Nather'.
"He won both the Second and First Class Iron Crosses during this time, the latter on 1 February 1916." → "He won both the Second and First Class Iron Crosses during this time, with the latter on 1 February 1916."
"July saw him vanquish a Sopwith Dolphin and three more Spad XIIIs." — It isn't written with a formal tone and needs to be rephrased. Perhaps → "In July, he shot down a Sopwith Dolphin and three more Spad XIIIs"
"Especially notable was 26 September, when he downed a Spad XIII in the morning and a balloon and another Spad XIII in mid-afternoon" → "His performance on 26 September was considered to be significant when he downed a Spad XIII in the morning and a balloon and another Spad XIII in mid-afternoon"
It was an era when pilots sat atop tin gas tanks while other men shot at them with incendiary bullets. Inevitably, some people fell flaming from the skies. Nothing poetic about that. The phrase is often found in texts describing air battles.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest that the event was poetic, but that the terminology "in flames" is. 1836 U.S. Patent Office fire could be described as "the building going down in flames" but that is not a bland, formal and neutral description of the event—bland, formal and neutral is how encyclopedias are written. Non-fiction books, even highly rated ones use that kind of terms because they are their accounts of what happened, instead of plain historical reporting of facts. I have been unable to find an instance on Wikipedia where "in flames" was used in a similar context and the article was of good or featured quality. I could be mistaken and if you can find precedence of its use in a number of good and featured quality articles, it would be all right. It is the same reason why Wikipedia discourages using "passed away" to describe someone's death, and suggest the plain "died" instead. — The Most ComfortableChair15:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not plumping for either the act or description being poetic; I believe my description above was pretty brutal. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. I have rewritten the entry to eliminate the phrase "in flames". However, Roth's airplane was on fire during this fight.
I would argue that the airplane being on fire is self-evident from it being "shot down". I wouldn't insist on this unless I believed it made a significant enough difference, which in my understanding it did because of the length of the article and importance of the event. I would like to apologize if I came off as a bit brusque at any point. — The Most ComfortableChair07:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Coincidentally, although he had become eligible with his 20th and 21st victories on 10 October, he was nominated for the Pour le Mérite also on the 29th; however, his was one of several nominations that was not approved because the war's end brought on chaos." — I am having some trouble understanding what this means. I would suggest a copyedit but I am a little confused; does it say that he was eligible for the award earlier but was nominated late — which happened because the war was coming to a chaotic end? If I get it right, you could write it as → "Although he become eligible for the Pour le Mérite with his 20th and 21st victories on 10 October, he was nominated on the 29 October; however, his was one of several nominations that were not approved because the war was coming to an end, ensuing chaos."
This can be a tough situation to explain. A Blue Max could only be awarded after the Hohenzollern; quickly scoring aces ran into "traffic jams" with their awards. Toward war's end, some aces eligible for the Blue Max weren't nominated. Some were, but weren't approved. A couple became belatedly eligible when their 20th victory was confirmed only after the Armistice. And at least one neglected ace unilaterally claimed his Blue Max.
The article covers as many details as it can about one of the more interesting figures of World War I, and it does so quite well. It is written nicely, has a good flow, and meets the criteria. Thank you for your work and dedication. — The Most ComfortableChair07:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources): 