Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hans Philipp/archive1

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.

Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Philipp[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it meets the criteria. Enjoy the read and let me know what I missed. Thanks once more. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: I did some copy editing. Please check that you are happy with my changes. I had a little trouble understanding everything (not my area of expertise, sorry), so I may have missed some things. As such, it might pay to ask someone else to take a look from a copy editor's perspective. Anyway, I have the following comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please check your English variation: I see "honour" and "metres" (British) but also "maneuvered", "defense", "favorable" etc (US);
- done, I hope MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the duplicate linker checker reports a couple of overlinked terms: air superiority, Adolf Hitler and Messerschmitt Bf 109;
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hermann Graf's full name is only mentioned in the lead, I'd recommend adding it to the body where you currently just refer to "Graf";
- done, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
is there any explanation for why he was called Hans when he was baptised Johannes Fritz?
- Sorry I don't understand, but in German many people named Johannes are referred to as Hans (name). I thought this was self evident, at least it is in German. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, no worries. Peacemaker's edit here works for me anyway, as it makes it clear to me that it was a nickname: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
currently there are two fair use images that are being used under a claim of being the "primary means of visual identification" for Phillip. As much as I hate to say it, I'm not sure that this is valid. One fair use image would be sufficient in this case, I think. That being the case, I'd suggest removing "File:Philipp-Ubben-Ostermann.jpg" as the infobox image does a better job of identifying the subject. That being said, though, it is possible that it might be in the public domain and not fair use? Are we sure that this isn't the case? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will check into this MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I argue that "Contextual significance" is given on this image. The image shows historically significant people in a very rare and seldom award ceremony. I think it help the reader understand the situation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nikkimaria: could you have a look at this, please Nikki? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Misterbee, you would need to make the argument that the image provides understanding for the reader in the FUR; the given FUR does not support the use of this image, for the reason that Rupert points out. You should also describe what steps have been taken to try to identify original source and copyright holder for both non-free images (to determine both whether they are in fact non-free, and whether the "previous publication with permission" criterion has been met). The infobox image should use {{Non-free biog-pic}} instead of the current tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I update the rationale on both images MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No worries, I can't say I understand Wikipedia's non-free policy well enough to opine as to whether the changes are sufficient. Overall, I'm quite happy with the article, though, so I'm happy to support it for A-class. Good luck with taking it further and thanks for your efforts on it so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do a bit of c/e on minor matters as I go.
"In 1927, she managed to have Philipp admitted to the Franziskaneum in Meissen, the Realgymnasium in Meissen", needs an explanation of what a realgymnasium is, as distinct from a gymnasium. I suggest "In 1927, she managed to have Philipp admitted to the Franziskaneum, the Realgymnasium in Meissen. A Realgymnasium was..."
- made an attempt, please have a look if this is sufficient MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Alma, desperate to secure funding for her son's schooling, wrote to the city council of Meissen in 1932 asking if the school fees could be waived." doesn't really make sense, if she was trying to secure funding, she would be saving, if she wanted to secure her child's schooling, she would be asking for the fees to be waived. Suggest "Alma, desperate to secure her son's schooling, wrote to the city council of Meissen in 1932 asking if the school fees could be waived."
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I release you with not only the biggest concerns for your own career, but with even greater concern for the Air Force at all" isn't a good translation, I suggest "I release you with great concern for your own career, but with even greater concern for the Air Force as a whole"
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"or air supremacy" - from the preceding paragraph, it would seem that air supremacy was not the objective in any case?
- reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"at his home school" - do you mean his old school? Which one? The realgymnasium? Worth noting whether it was the primary or secondary school.
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"While stationed at an airfield at Zemun near Belgrade" Suggest you note prior to this that the Yugoslavs had capitulated before this date.
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
link Pomerania
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"33rd German soldier" he was a Luftwaffe officer, not a soldier. The distinction is importance in English. Perhaps it would be better to note what number in the Luftwaffe he was?
- That is interesting and something I didn't know. In German, every member of the armed forces, irrespectively of rank or offices status, is considered a soldier, even generals or low ranking privates, they are all soldiers. The en-WP article on soldier states exactly this. So when I wrote 33rd German soldier I meant exactly this. How would you express this in English? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be entirely generic in English, I suggest "33rd member of the German armed forces" (or Wehrmacht, if that covers it). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Every fighter pilot taking off in a machine not showing any sign of combat, or without having recorded a victory will be prosecuted by a court-martial" I believe this should read "landing" not "taking off"
- reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The External links don't look like WP:RS to me, suggest deleting them.
- all or some of them? Feel free to delete those you consider unsuitable. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest using Template:Refbegin etc on references to reduce the type size.
- hm, it was in place?! MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
toolchecks are all green (no action required)
suggest creating a redirect from his full name
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done, great article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Remove the reference to the redesignation of JG 76 from the lede as his unit isn't referenced again there before his transfer to JG 1.
- I am not sure what you mean. It currently reads " he was posted to Jagdgeschwader 76 (JG 76—76th Fighter Wing) and participated in the invasion of Poland and as a Staffelkapitän (squadron leader) in the Battle of France. His unit was reformed as II./Jagdgeschwader 54 (JG 54—54th Fighter Wing) in June 1940." MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The redesignation should be covered in the main body, not the lede. It's not relevant in the lede because that's the only mention in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks I will chose to leave it as is MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and had received the HJ-Ehrenzeichen delete "had"
- done MisterBee1966 (talk)
Following this event, Philipp then changed his mind and decided he wanted to become a journalist. You never told us what he want to be originally. And it doesn't match the following sentence.
- good spot, he did not want to become a journalist. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give an abbreviation for Reichsmark on first use.
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why was his promotion at risk?
- Steinecke does not say. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Put a comma after Strunz.
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redesignation of I/KG 253 not really relevant since it's not mentioned again, under either name in the article. And did I'm not even sure that it happened before he transferred to Jagdwaffe. Conversely, the redesignation of I/JG 76 does matter because he remained in the unit for quite a while and it's mentioned several times under the new designation.
- moved to footnote MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, why does it matter at all? He wasn't in the unit when it was redesignated so how is it worth mentioning?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks I chose to leave it as is now. The reason for this is that KG 253 will probably never warrant a stand alone article and I wand to give the reader the option to find out about this unit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about rapid expansion of the Luftwaffe is relevant how?
- Reworded the following sentence to make the benefit to Philipp more transparent MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you call/translate Adlertag as Operation Eagle Attack when it's literally translated Eagle Day?
- Because that is what the GA article calls it in English. I assumed this to be the most common translation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tell the truth, I had no idea that there was anything other than Adlertag and have never, ever heard of Unternehmen Adler Angriffe; and I've read most of the available accounts of the BoB. Have you ever read about it in the German accounts? Right now I'm doubting that that was a legitimate LW codename and the Adlertag article doesn't source it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting, thanks. I changed it to Eagle Day MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't Marita the codename for the invasions of Greece and Yugoslavia both?
- I have seen it used in both context. What do you suggest? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - {drive-by comment) No, the name for the invasion of Yugoslavia was Operation 25 (from the Hitler Directive), but it isn't used very widely in the literature. Marita was Greece. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not persuaded that other awardees for his investiture of the Oak Leaves is encyclopedic. If you truly feel that it's important put it in a note.
- As a compromise I moved the info to a footnote. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gruppenkommandeur of the I./JG 54 Delete the "the" and add it to the Russian unit in the following sentence. Remember our previous discussion about German and English ordinals? English ordinals will almost always need "the" before the unit number.
- sorry, done, thanks for your pacients MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care about the other awardees for his investiture of the Swords. It's not encyclopedic, IMO. Put the info in the caption if you feel that it's absolutely necessary.
- As a compromise I moved the info to a footnote. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add country of publication for Defenders of the Reich. My copy only states copyright date, where does your day and month of publication come from?
- done, and yes you are right, I don't recall where I got this from, I removed it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you replace the ASIN for Steinecke with an ISBN?
- I only found an OCLC number MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That will do just fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I will be out for a few days. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

I see that Sturm mentioned the promotion being at risk issue above - I agree that it's a problem to bring it up and not be able to explain it. The reader will be left wondering why and we have no answer apparently.
- Added the details I have MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Made a small tweak to the wording.
On his accidents with the new Bf-109 - is it worth mentioning the notoriously weak undercarriage of the 109?
- Not sure how this pertains to Philipp but id you think it worth mentioning?! MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I figured it probably is relevant since he damaged the aircraft on takeoff and landing - presumably the weak undercarriage played a role? Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source does not link the crash to the weakness. It would be speculation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Blitz probably shouldn't be italicized.
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to point out that the Battle of Britain failed to secure both air supremacy and air superiority? Surely one will suffice.
- I disagree MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any reason why? They're different only in degree of control of the air. Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - To better explain my reasoning, one cannot win supremacy unless they first won superiority - it would be akin to writing that Rommel failed to capture Alexandria or El Alamein - the former necessarily could not have happened with out the latter having happened first. So it's redundant to say both. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I reworded slightly and I think it now is conform the definition of "Air supremacy is the highest level, where a side holds complete control of the skies" MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That's better. Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add the translation for Wolfsschanze, please. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Spick is listed in the citations but not in the bibliography. I'd recommend removing the second sentence (defining "ace") in the lead and going with: "... was a German Luftwaffe fighter ace during World War II, credited with 206 ...". Definitions in the first paragraph are usually a bad idea. I have no problem with putting the definition somewhere below the lead.
"born on 17 March 1917 at 22:45": I don't remember seeing time of birth in a WP biography before; is it relevant?
" physically examination": physical examination
"and or radio operator": or radio operator - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 10 May 2014 (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.