Jump to content

Talk:Rudolf Frank/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 05:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi mate, I should be able to get to this by mid-week at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox checks

  • No dablinks or EL issues.
  • No duplinks based on Ucucha's checker.

Prose/style -- copyedit a bit so pls let me know if I misunderstood anything; outstanding points:

  • I think linking World War II and modern countries like the Netherlands is overdoing things (obsolete political entities like Nazi Germany is different) but will leave it up to you whether to keep them or not.
  • I gather it's German practice to capitalise ranks like Leutnant, so no objection there, but I don't think the English translations (e.g. Second Lieutenant) should be capitalised unless used as a title. For instance, I'd expect you to say "Oberleutnant (First Lieutenant) Günther Specht" (which you do) but "promoted to Leutnant (second lieutenant)".
  • "Frank was born on 19 August 1920 in Karlsruhe-Grünwinkel at the time in the Republic of Baden during the time of the Weimar Republic" -- I think this could be worded better but first I need to confirm what is current and what is past. I know the Republic of Baden and the Weimar Republic are obsolete, does Karlsruhe-Grünwinkel still exist under that name?
  • "These crashes remained without any personal consequences for Frank" -- the "remained" is odd in English, and by "without personal consequences" do you mean "without injury" or "without reprimand"?
  • "Frank was also posthumously promoted, backdated to 1 April 1944" -- did I miss what rank he was promoted to?

Structure/detail seem fine.

Referencing

  • Formatting looks okay (no action required).
  • I'm not sure about the three online refs you cite -- what makes them reliable? They look like they're maintained by enthusiasts rather than by historians but perhaps I'm wrong... Admittedly I tend not to be too hard on that sort of thing at GA-level (as opposed to ACR or FAC).

Images

  • Licensing looks okay (no action required).
  • I didn't see alt text but admittedly it's not actually a requirement.

Summary -- looks pretty good, I'll await your responses to the above points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copy editing and constructive feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Always a pleasure working with you -- happy to pass now but of course let me know if any issues with my recent tweaks... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]