Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gordon Gollob

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Gordon Gollob[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Gordon Gollob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Gollob was the first fighter pilot to claim 150 aerial victories, was appointed wing commander, and succeeded Adolf Galland as the last General der Jagdflieger. I hope to have captured his biography sufficiently to qualify the article for A-Class. Thanks for the review MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I recently reviewed this article at GA, including an image review, and did a light c/e. I believe it also meets the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Due to a fear that he would be killed in action, Gollob..." --> "Due to concerns that he would be killed in action, Gollob..."?
    • "In preparation of Operation Barbarossa..." --> "In preparation for Operation Barbarossa..."?
    • "At the time, II. Gruppe primary objective was..." --> "At the time, II. Gruppe's primary objective was.."
    • "claimed two I-61 and..." --> "claimed two I-61s and..."
    • "claimed three I-16, one Pe-2 and one I-61..." --> "claimed three I-16s, one Pe-2 and one I-61..."
    • "credited with three R-5 and..." --> "credited with three R-5s and..."
    • "wingman" is potentially overlinked
    • in the Bibliography, "Mechanicsburg" --> which state/country is this?
    • "File:Theresianische Militaerakademie DSC 6487w.jpg": probably needs a freedom of panorama licence also, per [1]
    • "File:Geschwaderwappen Jagdgeschwader 77.png": not sure about this one, but I think it should probably have a PD-Shape licence
      • Thanks for the review, I addressed all your comments above. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries, I've added my support now. Good luck with taking this article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @AustralianRupert: for the record, @P e z i:, commons:user:P e z i has reverted your request for a freedom of panorama licence on "File:Theresianische Militaerakademie DSC 6487w.jpg" MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • No worries, I'm not sure I understand the editor's reason for this, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. Bottom line is, I believe, that the image is ok to use, so it's all good as they say. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • No need for worries. The image is OK: This building dates back to the year 1752 - which kind of copyright should there be? IMO the FoP license makes sense with recently constructed building but not with ancient architecture. BTW, thanks for using my pic! :) Cheers --P e z i (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

  • Substitute "he" for "Gollob" when "he" wouldn't be ambiguous, except after breaks and mini-breaks.
  • I've copyedited down to World War II and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, do I have to take action here? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just saw this. Recently, I've been doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. My only recommendation is my first bullet point. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments This article looks in excellent shape, I just have the following comments:

Norwegian Campaign and Battle of Britain

  • "The flight was intercepted by the Luftwaffe, in the resulting aerial encounter, eight Skuas were shot down, the first by Gollob." Three commas in this short sentence; suggest the first be replaced with "and".
  • This paragraph doesn't make sense to me: "On 7 September 1940 during the Battle of Britain, Gollob was transferred to the Gruppenstab (headquarters unit) of II. Gruppe Jagdgeschwader 3 (JG 3—3rd Fighter Wing) based at Arques in northern France. Four days later, Staffelkapitän—Oberleutnant Werner Voigt of 4. Staffel was shot down over England and taken prisoner of war—on 8 October 1940, and Gollob took command of 4. Staffel." In particular, what happened on 8 October? Was this when Voigt was made prisoner of war (in which case he evaded capture for several days after being shot down on 11 Sept or is it when Gollob took command (which is what I suspect should be the case). Maybe the dash should be a full stop. I.e. should read: "...of war. On 8 October, Gollob took command..."
  • "...his sixth overall.": sixth fighter, sixth Spitfire, or sixth victory?

War against the Soviet Union

  • "On 7 August, II. Gruppe moved again, from Bila Tserkva the Gruppe moved to Signajewka,..": already established that the Gruppe is at Bila Tserkva; maybe rephrase to "On 7 August, II. Gruppe moved to Signajewka,..." Gets rid of the double usage of Gruppe in the same sentence as well.

Battle of Moscow and Crimean Campaign

  • "On 30 September 1941, the Gruppe was temporary transferred away...": should be "temporarily"
  • Duplicate link: Geschwaderstab
  • "he filed claim for nine...": should be "filed a claim" or "filed claims for.
  • "further 21 aircraft received heavy damaged and another 27 were lightly damaged": "a further 21 aircraft received heavy damage...

Prisoner of war and later life

  • "Pass Strub"; is this a place or should the Strub be italics?

Bibliography

  • Some of the books from the UK/USA lack country of publication. Eg, Weal includes this information but Holmes and Isby don't. Spick lacks a state of publication while Toliver has a state but abbreviated (in contrast to Bergström et al and Fiest).

That is it for me. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I think I addressed it all. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I made one small fix but am now adding my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Gordon_Gollob&oldid=709725382"