Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Werner Voss

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Voss[edit]

Nominator(s): Georgejdorner‎ (talk)


I have extensively rewritten this article; I spent eight days revising it online. It is now about half again as long as when I began. Major text additions are to his early life, to his friendly rivalry with the Red Baron, and to his final combat. (The latter is one of the most notable air battles of World War I—and one of the most misreported.) Also, I relocated and recaptioned the graphics. I believe the article satisfies A Class criteria.

Support Comments

I will have a close look at prose in a few days, but initial comments at this stage:

  • Lead: this could have a sentence RE his early life and army career. I also note the date format is MDY here but DMY in main body.
    • Dates now DMY. Sentence added.
  • From cavalry to clouds: Any info on what he won the Iron Cross for?
    • No info on feats for which Iron Cross was won.
  • Last Flight: there is repeated mention of British aces, and the lead mentions there were 8; were they actually all aces? The acronym RFC is used but Royal Flying Corps isn't specifically mentioned until the table.
    • Subbed in "British" for "RFC".
    • Every usage of the term "ace" in this text refers to a man who was credited with shooting down at least five enemy aircraft. Every one of them is linked to a biography that supplies that proof. The eight British aces were Hamersley, Chidlaw-Roberts, McCudden, Bowman, Muspratt, Rhys-Davids, Hoidge, and Mayberry. Cronyn was not an ace, and is not linked. German aces were Menckhoff and Voss.
  • Table: Is there a surplus row between rows 34/35? Is it convention to have @ in the table; it seems somewhat informal to me but perhaps it is standard practice?
    • To quote the caption at the top of the list: "Doubled horizontal lines mark a change in squadron assignment."
      • face meet palm. My bad. Zawed (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have found nothing in the WP MOS concerning "@". If its usage perturbs readers, I could certainly change it.
  • Notes: VanWyngarden - should there be a space after the Van? Also, several books mentioned in the bibliography are not actually cited. I suggest creating a further reading section to include the ones that have most detail on Voss. Diggens looks the most applicable from its title.
    • VanWyngarden is spelled as the bearer spells it.
    • Bibliography listings not referred to as cites are now sequestered in a Further reading section.
  • Images: these look OK
  • No duplicate links

As mentioned, I will do a detailed review on the text shortly. Zawed (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it has taken longer that I thought to get back to this. Anyway, some comments:

Early life

  • "He was expected to carry on the family trade when grown.": the "when grown" bit does not read well. Suggestion: He was expected to follow his father into the dying trade."
    • Rewritten, but with aim of avoiding term "dying trade" to squelch misinterpretation the family business was expiring.
  • "When he finished his schooling, he volunteered for the Krefeld Militia." So he entered the militia instead of becoming a dyer?
    • Linked to Militia article in WP so inquisitive readers can find info on German militia. Inferred that militia service is not fulltime.

Military service

  • "reassignment" - this suggests that higher authorities transferred him and doesn't quite tie in with him enlisting (which I read as volunteered for) in the 2nd Westphalian.
    • Clarified.
  • The subheading "From cavalry to clouds" seems somewhat flowery. Not an issue for me personally, but others might query it. If you persevere with it, might I suggest "From the cavalry to the clouds".
    • I have had this both ways, and chose the shorter. Either is factually accurate without the garnish of peacocking adjectives. And (I remark plaintively) why can't an encyclopedia be enjoyable reading as well as accurate?
  • "Following the disbandment of his regiment": Do we know why it was disbanded? If as a result of heavy losses in a battle, this might be worth mentioning?
    • This is another editor's factoid, which I am unable to confirm. However, it is not mentioned in any other source, and the source given appears to be of "fanboy" quality. I feel justified in deleting this.

The wife has just told me I need to go cut the lawns. More to follow shortly. Zawed (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry, but this editor does not do lawns.
  • "FEA 7" - has not been introduced as an abbreviation.
    • Fliegerersatz-Abteilung 7 (Training Detachment 7) is used two sentences before first use of "FEA 7". I thought that the reader would make the relevant abbreviation in his/her mind while reading. Unchanged for now.

Aerial combat

  • No need for the rank in the first sentence of this section.
    • Duplication eliminated.
  • Kampfstaffel 20: Do we know type of aircraft this unit operated?
    • Exact aircraft type not given in sources. Rewrote to specify that this was a bomber unit.
  • "Commissioned on 9 September 1916": Suggest: "Commissioned with the rank of Lieutenant (Leutnant) on 9 September 1916"?
    • Clarified.
  • "It was there he began...": this is actually quite a long sentence that could be broken down.
    • Broke it in half at the semi-colon.
  • It needs to be mentioned that Richthofen became known as the Red Baron; otherwise readers not familiar with the subject won't follow the Red Baron reference later.
    • Changed.
  • "...when the British suffered heavy air casualties inflicted by German aviators...." Suggest: when the Luftstreitkräfte inflicted heavy losses on the Royal Flying Corps.
    • Adopted, with a tweak.
  • "The response to this insubordination was to fire Voss from Jasta 2 with a severe reprimand.": Suggest: This insubordination resulted in Voss being reprimand and he was transferred from Jasta 2.
    • Adopted, with a tweak. As the present text of Insubordination has only a tenuous link with the situation described, I delinked it.
  • "While downing one of..": Suggest: While downing an aircraft of...
    • Deleted in rewrite.
  • Flt Sub-Lt: suggest reciting rank in full. Same goes for other ranks mentioned.
    • Ranks now written in full.
  • "but there were doubts that...": Who doubted?
    • I lack this particular source, but will check others. As I recall, this observation was pretty widespread.
      • Managed to check source given. The information given did not fully support this sentence, so I deleted it.
  • "He was a casual dresser,...": This sentence seems a little out of place at this point in the article; perhaps work it with the next section that mentions his silk dress shirt? Maybe: "He wore a colorful civilian silk dress shirt beneath his knee-length brown leather coat. It was his habit to dress well under his aviation gear, so that he would be presentable in case of a forced landing."
    • Source noted polished boots and silk shirt, though not the shirt's color. Can't history be strange, sometimes?
    • I am still contemplating further rewrite on the subject of his dress.
      • I rewrote it to note that he sometimes bent (if not broke) uniform regulations with his sloppy dress while with his unit.
  • "He was to lead one of the two scheduled patrols.": ...two scheduled patrols for the afternoon?
    • Changed to "two scheduled afternoon patrols".

Last flight

  • "His polished brown boots shone from below the coat's hem. His Pour le Merite was at his throat.":Seems a little un-encyclopedic, especially the bit with shining boots.
    • Source noted polished boots and silk shirt, though not the shirt's color. Can't history be strange, sometimes? At any rate, I saw no need to repeat his penchant for dressing well to fly, as I mentioned it first three paragraphs above.
    • I am still contemplating further rewrite on the subject of his dress.
      • Kept this, as it is mentioned in source. Clarifications above concerning dress ought to justify this description.
  • link "Tail End Charlie"
    • Deleted. I used and linked this term in hopes that someone would extend the Tail End Charlie article in response to my note on its talk page. Maybe I can link it again when/if that happens.
  • "in a 60 Squadron formation": Suggest: in a formation of 60 Squadron aircraft?
    • Rewritten.
  • link Royal Aircraft Factory. Also, this the second mention of the SE5a so the Royal Aircraft Factory should actually be used on the first mention.
  • "the British repeated the "box maneuver" at least three more times that day.": the use of "that day" is redundant. Also suggest "British pilots".
    • Changed per suggestions.
  • "Mayberry withdrew, his SE.5as upper right-hand longeron holed in several places.": Suggest: Mayberry withdrew, the upper right-hand longeron of his SE.5a holed in several places.
    • Emended.
  • "his remaining six opponents...": Bearing in mind your comment above regarding my "aces" query, can this be amended to: his remaining six opponents, all aces,...? This would provide some context for the sentence "Voss had fought the British aces for 10 minutes..."
    • Rang in first mention of aces prior to this in rewrite.
  • "After flying past McCudden in a head-on confrontation, however,...": Delete "however".
    • Word "however" deleted in slight rewrite.

List of aerial victories

  • Reviewing the notes column, some of the comments are little inconsistent in presentation. For example, entries No. 2 and 46 include aircraft type, which repeats info from the foe column. No. 4 starts "Victim was..." No other entry uses this terminology. Two fullstops in the comment for No. 33. Is there really a need for the result column?
    • Infelicities in victory list rectified.
    • The "Results" column in my list template usually fills with details of the victim's demise as I comb through my sources. I have more materials coming in through my Interlibrary Loan System, and hope to develop this column. As it stands now, the Results column listing conforms to Aerial victory standards of World War I.

Have finished my review of the text now. Hope you find it useful. Zawed (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Zawed. Your comments were generally insightful and helpful.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have gone over your changes, generally looking good. I'm still not fussed on the flowery description of his dress on his last flight but I don't want to cramp your personal style. I have added antecedence for the Red Baron, which was missing. Will you be adding stuff on his legacy as per MisterBee's suggestion below? Zawed (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The flowery description is as close enough to a copy from the source as I dare.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have added my support. Good luck for the rest of the A-class review. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport - MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check google maps Google (18 August 2013). "WikiProject Military history/Assessment" (Map). Google Maps. Google. Retrieved 18 August 2013., the Werner-Voß-Straße in Krefeld was named after him, maybe worth noting. You will also find streets in Berlin and Stuttgart named after him. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice information, but site appears to have dubious reliability. No bibliography given for web site. It cites a press release (or something similar) and only mentions Voss in passing. Georgejdorner (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errors here begin with blatant mis-identification of "Richthofen" in photo with Voss. Richthofen was not an older pinch-faced brunette man; the Red Baron was fair complected, young, and broad-faced. The mis-identified man resembles Werner's brother, Otto. Again, no bibliography given for web site.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rechecked. No new info except for errors. Re: 49 victories (actually 48) and 22 victories while flying triplane (actually 10). Unusable due to unreliability.
I hope that I am not miscommunicating here. I am not saying that you should or must rely on the sources I provided here. I am saying that I provided indications that information pertaining to Voss is currently not reflected in the article. To me this is vital information pertaining to his legacy and idolization in both Nazi Germany (school named after him) and the Federal Republic of Germany (streets named after him). Now that I know that this info exists, I find it difficult to give my support at A-class level if this information were not reflected somehow. How you want to reflect this info, or how you want to reference it, what sources you want to use, etc., I leave up to you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MisterBee,

I am grateful you discovered some more information for the Legacy section of the article. I had found not so much as a hint thus far that he had not been forgotten. It is rather gratifying that despite Werner being interred without honors, he should be honored in his native country. I should love to include this info from RELIABLE sources, and I will try to find reliable sources to do so. However, using unreliable sources to "stretch" an article can't be an improvement on said article. I should hope you have given thought to the possibility that reliable sources for this information may not exist. As it stands now, I see only the first reference you have given as being possibly usable. Now, I am off to seek more reliable sources.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the official website of the city of Krefeld, endorsed by its mayor and government, elected in the democratic process of the Federal Republic of Germany, is an unreliable source? It is one thing to identify errors on their page, but to classify it as unreliable as a whole is a very strong statement which you may want to reconsider. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware it was a municipal website, so I shall give it a good second look. However, I have had some memorable experiences with institutional websites being unreliable. For instance, as I recall, the U. S. Air Force website is riddled with errors concerning World War I pilots. So be aware that may or may not be true of this city website.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just checked. The website is actually for the Alumni of the school. I am going to have to do some WP research on this one.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Used after recheck.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- Hi George, copyedited as usual, pls let me know if any issues. Outstanding points...

  • Prose:
    • "Voss was both slightly wounded and forced down on 6 June 1917 by Flight Sub-Lieutenant Christopher Draper as he shot down the British naval flier, but soon returned to duty." -- Bit of an epic, this sentence. Can I confirm we mean that Voss shot down Draper but was himself wounded and forced down (by Draper)?
      • (blush) Did I truly commit this atrocity? Many thanks for the chance to put it out of its misery.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Flight Commander Captain James McCudden" -- My understanding is that captain is his rank and flight commander his position, is that correct? If so I'd suggest writing as "The flight commander, Captain James McCudden" or "Captain James McCudden, the flight commander".
      • Presently supplied linkage to article on the flight position verifies that it is indeed a flight position. Isn't that what hyperlinking is for?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second thoughts: If I eliminate the term, I dispose of any possibility of confusion.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing: I'm afraid some of the online sources seem a bit dubious to me for A-Class, i.e. The Aerodrome (well presented as we know it is), The Blue Max, The Last Stand, The Last Dogfight. My feeling is, with all the reliable book sources in the bibliography, why can't we find the info and sourcing we need in those?
    • I inherited the online references from prior editors. While respecting their contributions, I have done all I can to lessen reliability on website cites. I might add that all websites retained thus far have bibliographies (although they can be difficult to find).Georgejdorner (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting materials: Image licensing looks okay to me.
  • Structure/detail: Seem logical/adequate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [2] (no action req'd).
    • Images lack Alt Text [3] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
    • Image review completed above (no action req'd).
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
    • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
    • Early life section seems a little thin. Do we know the name of his parents or what school/s he went to during his childhood?
    • Likewise the recount of his early cavalry service. "In 1914, at the age of 17, Voss enlisted in the 2nd Westphalian Hussar Regiment Nr. 11, and served on the Eastern Front." Is there any information on where in particular, e.g. what battles was he involved in etc during this period?
      • No reliable info found. Best guess is Poland, but I can't credit that without a reliable source.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok no worries, can't include it if its not available. Anotherclown (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presentation of British squadron names doesn't seem quite right to me. You use constructions like "57 Squadron" where I think "No. 57 Squadron RFC" would be more correct.
      • Use of "57 Squadron", etc. for British squadrons is comparable with use of jasta XX for German ones. It also avoids the hassle of (re)explaining that the RFC existed before it consolidated with the RNAS to become the RAF, etc. My aim was to make the text easily readable, without diversions.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless, I believe "57 Squadron" is inconsistent with the policy in WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Anotherclown (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • If "57 Squadron" is inconsistent, so is Jasta 10. The latter is formally "Royal Prussian Jagdstaffel 10". Will clogging this article with formal unit names actually improve it? Or will it simply render it harder to read?Georgejdorner (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • language here a little informal to me: "... he ripped the German aircraft end to end with his machine guns before turning...", particularly "ripped" (consider something like "engaged" or something similar).
    • "Rhys Davids again raked the German plane before missing a mid-air collision by inches...", consider instead: "Rhys Davids again raked the German plane before avoiding a mid-air collision by inches..."
      • It would be a false statement to say Rhys Davids avoided a midair collision, as the incident occurred so quickly he had no chance to react.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • informality here too: "...then pancaked in, leaving only the rudder intact...", (i.e. "pancaked") perhaps reword?
    • "... some 6 km northeast of Ypres, Belgium..." perhaps use the {{convert}} template to convert to miles for readers unfamiliar with kms?
    • In refs: "Franks, Norman. Albatros Aces of World War 1: Volume 32 of Aircraft of the Aces Series: Part 1 of Albatros Aces of World War I: Volume 32 of Osprey Aviation Series: Osprey Aircraft of the Aces. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2000. ISBN 978-1-85532-960-7." I think you may have accidently copy pasted something twice here. Surely no need to write Volume 32 or the series name twice?
    • Likewise: "VanWyngarden, Greg. Richthofen's Circus': Jagdgeschwader, Issue 1: Volume 16 of Aviation Elite Units: Volume 16 of Osprey Aviation Elite. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2004. ISBN 978-1-84176-726-0." surely no need to say "Volume 16" and " Aviation Elite" twice?
      • Title given is that fetched via ISBN from Google Advanced Book Search.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Suggest Google is likely wrong here. Check out Worldcat for the correct title [5]. (Exactly the reason I suggested using the templates - eliminates MOS errors). Anotherclown (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your link leads to a book authored by John Weal. Reference in bibliography is written by Greg VanWyngarden. Are these even the same book? Or are they differing books sharing the same title?Georgejdorner (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest using the {{cite book}} template to ensure consistent presentation of refs IAW with the MOS.
    • I share Ian's concerns on the overuse of low qlty online sources. Could more reliable published sources be substituted?
      • I inherited the online references from prior editors. While respecting their contributions, I have done all I can to lessen reliability on website cites. I might add that all websites retained thus far have bibliographies (although they can be difficult to find).Georgejdorner (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not an expert on the use of websites on Wikipedia, and admit that out of prejudice I tend to avoid them and use books instead. That said I'm not really convinced that these meet the requirements of WP:RS. Think that greater effort may be required to substitute these or at least reduce the reliance on them (there are whole paragraphs that only use one of these websites as a source). Even a very quick Google Books search throws up multiple books that could be used to reference the McCudden quote for instance. Anotherclown (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Textual cite added for McCudden quote. When Flying Fury comes in on Interlibrary loan, I will reference that instead.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • To repeat an example I have made to other editors about this skepticism about websites....if Greg VanWyngarden writes in a book, he's a reliable source, but if he writes as "Greg Van" on The Aerodrome website, he isn't? And have you noticed that Aerodrome pages often carry the title of the source text at the bottom of a bio page? Also, note that there is no reliance on forum listings, therefore no idle speculation. And if you will scroll up, you can read my suspicious attitude toward reliability in websites. As for the books you mention, I have requests out for Interlibrary Loans, with the aim of eventually reducing this articles dependence on websites. One of the paperbacks on ILL order is priced at over $100 on Amazon!Georgejdorner (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise this is looking very good to me. Happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2013 (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/Werner_Voss&oldid=791880531"