Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke

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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Wilcke was one of the German fighter aces of World War II to become a wing commander. He had fought on the Western and Eastern Front and was killed in 1944 when the Lustwaffe had lost the air war over Europe. Thanks in advance for your time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support I've only got two comments:

The first note needs a citation.
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are two "clarification needed" tags in the article
- I had to revert these. Look for the Note2, it explains the nomenclature of Luftwaffe units. It is never spelled out, it is either a regular number, for squadrons, or a roman numeral, for groups. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, since I am not an expert at the Luftwaffe, it didn't seem clear to me.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the rest of my comments seemed like nitpicks, I did them myself.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

"He claimed his tenth victory, again a Hurricane, on a 11:15 am mission targeting the London area on 20 September" - does that mean the kill was at 11:15? The mission hit London at 11:15? It took off at 11:15?
- good point, reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh, that was my initial copyedit, an 11:15am mission being one that took off at 11:15, but fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general, German terms are given first, so why not for Battle Group Wilke?
- agreed, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...claimed 137 victories of which 97 victories were credited to Wilcke." - this can't be right - he was already over 100 by this point, and then it says his tally rose to 135 later.
- The full sentence reads "During this summer offensive the Geschwaderstab of JG 3 "Udet" claimed 137 victories, of which 97 victories were credited to Wilcke", I underlined the parts you commented on. What I tried to say, in a specific time frame his unit claimed 137 victories and Wilcke accounted for 97 of these. In Sports, Barcelona beat Munich 3:0 and Messi scored two of these goals. Does this make sense? MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I get that, but the article says that by early September, his tally was at 100 victories - this line makes it sound like he got almost another 100 during the Battle of Stalingrad. I think you're saying that in the course of the 1942 summer campaign, he scored 97 kills, but it's oddly placed here - I would probably move it to the end of the first paragraph in the Wing commander of JG 3 section. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I reworded the sentence. I think it is clear now MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worthwhile to explain why the 150 mark came with a ban from flying, even if just in a note.
- good idea, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stabsschwarm needs a translation
- added MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to check th translation of the Wehrmachtbericht - I don't think the German refers to him as a night fighter. Parsecboy (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- good catch, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - All looks good to me now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ ~~-- leaning to support pending resolution of Nate's points...~~

Pretty happy with prose now but let me know if I stuffed anything up with my copyedit.
Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
Image licensing looks okay and couldn't see any obvious referencing issues.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything's taken care of now -- well done as usual, MB. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I made a few copy edits, but not a lot stood out to me. Please check you are happy with my changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2015 (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.