Talk:Friedrich Noltenius/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 11:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I will review in the next few days. Zawed (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, so it took me a bit longer than I thought to get here...comments as follows:

Infobox

 * Delete the date range from the caption for the image, dob, dod, is already in the infobox.
 * Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would remove the translations for his units from the infobox and add them to the text instead. When doing so, RE Jagdstaffel, given the context of how Jagdstaffel 27 is first introduced in the text, I don't think a translation is needed as it is clear that it is a squadron
 * Removed translations. Clarified types of units in text.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to do this. Only cluttered up info box thinking this might be needed for review.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead

 * I would mention him serving in the artillery initially before transferring to the Luftstreitkräfte (and when he transferred, he seemed to have accumulated victories quite quickly given he only started flying fighters in July 1918).
 * Indeed. Wrote in artillery service. Wedged in start/end dates of victory list.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * combat career began with a horrifying incident: his "combat" career arguably started with his service in the army, suggest rephrasing.
 * So a peacetime soldier's combat career begins with his/her enlistment?
 * No, I was referring to his war service with the artillery. We don't know one way or the other whether he came under fire or not (but he did get Iron Crosses and was wounded) before his aviation career. Zawed (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You've made a good call here, but for the wrong reason. See above query.
 * Your combat career begins when you come under fire and/or start shooting at an enemy. Speaking from personal history, my combat career began over six years into my service.
 * I have inserted the term "aerial" to clarify text, as part of the rewrite.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Noltenius managed to begin shooting down enemy airplanes: the "managed" does not sit well with me; it implies some sort of struggle. I would suggest just referring to his first confirmed victory, e.g. Noltenius shot down his first confirmed enemy aircraft on 10 August 1918...
 * Cleaned up in rewrite.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Only war's end: "Only the war's end..."?
 * Fixed in rewrite--though it was good as written.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Early life

 * No need to bold his name in this section
 * Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggest breaking his earlier war service into its own section, e.g. Army service?
 * I dunno. This is a rather small section as it is. Better to leave it be.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Will the source support stating which army? e.g. "...enlisted in the Field Artillery Regiment No. 13 of the Army of Württemberg?
 * Noltienius was from the independent Hanseatic city of Bremen, which was surrounded by Lower Saxony. Somehow he ended up in a Württemberg regiment, as you intuited. Change made.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because December is used in previous sentence, I think it is OK to say "He then transferred to the Western Front..."
 * Rewritten for clarity.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Any indication of the severity/nature of the wound?
 * No.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Aerial service

 * transferred to flying service... recite the official name of the service (presumably Luftstreitkräfte?), plus translation of same. The infobox should reflect this as well.
 * Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because we have a date for him starting aviation training that is well after the date of the awards, I think it is OK to move their mention into the previous section to follow the mention of the wounding (it keeps everything chronological). Does the source say that nor is it known which branch of service or is that something you added because it is not explicitly stated? Either way, I think just keeping it factual, i.e. that he received the awards, is preferable to introducing the potential ambiguity.
 * Well said. Further thought makes me realize he could not earn any awards as a flier until he finished pilot training. Moved awards upward as you suggested.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Noltenius began aviation training on 3 November 1917. what's the difference between aviation training (this sentence) and flight training (following sentence)
 * Distinction made.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After only a brief... delete only, it is redundant given the use of "brief"
 * Done. Nice catch.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The heading "First kill" is inappropriate - presumably it is only Noltenius' opinion that it was his first kill. His combat claim could have rightfully been denied.
 * As stated in text, Noltenius admitted in his diary that he killed the observer.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some editors of aviation articles use "kill" to mean any successful combat claim. I insist on using the term only to describe a human death.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Flying in this killing weather Noltenius found himself one of three German pilots attacking a French Breguet 14 on the 18th. Not crazy about the phrasing here, particularly killing weather/18th. Suggest "Two days later, flying in these conditions, Noltenius found himself one of three German pilots attacking a French Breguet 14.}}
 * Clarified why it was killing weather.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ...enemy observation balloon. The gasbag was too wet... Suggest combining these sentences, e.g. "...enemy observation balloon but it was too wet..."
 * Tightened this up in the rewrite.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * His second win, ten days later,...: the "win" language is inappropriate and contributes to an unfavourable "game" analogy for aerial warfare. I suggest simply deleting it here, it is pretty clear, given the previous sentence, that "the second" it is referring to a victory
 * Good catch. Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * scoring his fifth and sixth triumphs. If the source supports it, suggest "...scoring his fifth and sixth triumphs that day", which I think it is what is intended? The present wording implies that he may have been an ace earlier.
 * Corrected.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The next day, another double claim—and again the decision went against Noltenius. the usage of decision (umpire's decision) is another potential "game" analogy. Suggest: "A similar situation arose the next day, when Nolenius' claim for a shot down enemy aircraft was officially credited to another pilot."
 * Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He survived being blown out of the sky on 14 September,... Given the way the previous paragraph ended, I was expecting a mention of the transfer here. Suggest adding something like "Continuing with flight operations while awaiting his transfer, he survived..."
 * Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * However, he was... The usage of "However" implies a connection to the loss of the aircraft but they are really two separate incidents.
 * Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He was shot down again... Again? He hasn't been shot down before - If the "again" is in reference the balloon explosion, he made it back to base and landed so that doesn't really constitute being shot down.
 * Good catch. I had fooled myself into thinking he had been shot down before. Deleted 'again'.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * on the 22nd 22 September - keeps the date presentation consistent
 * Changed.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By this time, Noltenius had successfully claimed victory over another four enemy airplanes... Suggest "By this time, Noltenius had successfully claimed victory over destroyed another four enemy airplanes
 * Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * this time within the Flying Circus The usage of "within" implies that JG6 was part of the Flying Circus. If so, I suggest mentioning that when JG6 is first identified.
 * Deleted reference to Flying Circus.
 * BTW, the abbreviation 'JG' means Jagdgruppe.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * his 21st and last credited victory needs to mention that it was an Airco de Havilland DH.4, otherwise the caption for the corresponding image is effectively unsourced. Thinking of the disputes over double claiming, should it state "last officially credited victory for clarity?
 * Fixed mentions of DH.4. Unconfirmed victories are not only enumerated as they happened, but are also in linked list of victories...except that list is one short. I'll have to fix that.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: That correction will have to take place on linked list of victories.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrections made in list. Research revealed six denied claims. This is the first time I ever have discovered unconfirmed victories that were not part of a source's victory list.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My first reaction was, adding "officially" would be redundant. Upon reflection, I realized there is no harm in hammering home this point.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pour le Mérite is italicised in the lead but not here.
 * Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He had flown 141 combat sorties by war's end. Suggest moving this sentence to close out this section, puts everything in chronological order.
 * Excellent suggestion. Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Postwar life

 * After the war he fought against the communists attempting to take over Germany. So was he part of the Freikorps? I think this is going to need a one or two liner to provide some context, I'm not sure the average reader will be familiar this period of German history. Maybe, "During the period of unrest in Germany that followed the end of the war, he fought..." with a "period of unrest" linked to German Revolution of 1918–1919? That might be enough to do it.
 * Wow, I never knew about that article. I did know about the Spartakists, though. Anyhow, I've adopted your suggestion. Obviously, I'm not too familiar with this era of German history.
 * Note of interest: Another famous ace, Rudolf Berthold, was deeply involved in that revolution.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then he completed... suggest "He then completed..."
 * Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Place of death is Airfield in text but airport in infobox
 * Corrected and linked.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No info on place of burial or family? The family is mentioned wrt to moving to South America.
 * No info on burial or family survivors.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What does 'wrt' mean??Georgejdorner (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggest moving the mention of his writings into this section, it seems excessive to have a single sentence section otherwise. What is the Cross and Cockade Journal, some sort of aviation magazine?
 * Cross and Cockade is the historical journal of the The First World War Aviation Historical Society. I'll stick this identifier into the article along with a bit of explanation.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the chronological slot for this section.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Other stuff
OK, that's my initial review done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The image tags look OK, not that image copyright is a strength of mine.
 * The caption "Noltenius' weapon was a Fokker D.VII." I would think most people would think of a weapon as something that is held, pistol, rifle, knife. I suggest "Noltenius flew a Fokker D.VII during his career as a fighter pilot" or similar.
 * The public imperception of a fighter plane as a weapon was exactly why I used this phrasing. Let's deem it an educational caption.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One dupe link: observation balloon
 * And both in same para? Shame on me. Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Unrequested changes

 * Removed dupe link to Kingdom of Württemberg.
 * Linked Prussia and Württemberg in info box.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rewrite of the lede.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Addenda
When I went back through the texts, I found that Noltenius had six victories awarded to other pilots--including three awarded to themselves by the very commanding officers making the decisions. No wonder Friedrich wanted a transfer or two!Georgejdorner (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is looking good, there is no doubt in my mind this is a GA. I just want to have another detailed pass of the article and changes before passing, will be a day or two more. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I made a couple of changes RE adding a translation to the text, I think it got overlooked. There is one further suggestion I would like you to consider but I don't view it as significant enough to hold up promotion and will be passing this as a GA. The suggestion is the "In the beginning" section ...on 3 November 1917. In February 1918,... The close usage of dates is a little jarring. I would suggest something like: "...on 3 November 1917. Four months later..." Regardless, I am passing as GA as noted above as I consider that this meets the necessary criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a careful and attentive review. This talk page should serve as an example of both an unfair and rude review, contrasted to your skilled and perceptive reviewing.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)