Talk:Gus Winckel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This looks very interesting, will aim to review by the weekend at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Very happy to have such an experienced warfare article writer and reviewer for this! Crispulop (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Profuse apologies, I did of course mean last w/e not this w/e but some other events claimed my attention in the meantime -- definitely today! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I have been and am quite busy for the next couple of days, so that's why there was some delay in responding. As you might have noticed I'm quite new to this so I'm very grateful for the helping me out here.Crispulop (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Toolbox checks -- no dab or EL issues.

Structure/Prose -- I generally find it's easier to just copyedit articles but pls let me know if I've misunderstood anything or you disagree with the changed wording.
 * Thanks for that, you made quite an effort. As you might have noticed, I am not a native speaker.

Images -- none as yet, which is not an issue per se but a quick search of the Australian War Memorial revealed some freely licensed pictures:
 * Photo from 1942
 * Drawing from 1945 -- this might make a good infobox image
 * Thank you, I ofcourse did a search of images myself. But was not able to find any free use ones. I'll try to put these ones in the article once I have found out how to get rid of the bottom text on them.
 * Glad they were useful. As I said above, I think the portrait might've been better for the infobox even though it's only a drawing, leaving the photo with other people for the main body, but it's not a big deal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Content/Sources
 * Overall, I think the level of detail is probably sufficient for GA, however I'm not certain that all of it should remain based on some of the sources, which I'll explain below...
 * "Service Years" in the infobox should be a date range, from when he entered military service (1935 I believe) to when he left service (that's not clear) -- do we have a date from a reliable source concerning exactly when he ceased military service in New Zealand?
 * Afraid to say I have not seen any. I've removed it from the article, as I've misinterpreted what was stated in the source. He was in Dutch service for WWII between at least 1935 and 1945. He also served in Dutch Politionele Acties (up to 1949). And then he served in New Zealand Reserve forces, but for that I have no dates. Now removed


 * I'm not comfortable with so much of the article being cited to two sources written (and in one case apparently published) by the subject's son. We really need independent sources for WP articles.  At a pinch, at this level, one could perhaps accept minor family details being sourced from the son's articles, but claims such as Winckel being among the top ten students in his course, or the details of the Broome raid or the rescue mission to Java, need independent corroboration -- I would not be using the younger Winckel as a source for any part of these. It looks to me like your best sources of information to cite in the article at the moment are Hurst and the ABC articles.
 * You make a very valid point here. My enthousiasm of the subject has clouded my judgement and attention. As regarding the first part, I've removed that statement that he topped his class as I don't think I will corroboration of that statement elsewhere. The rest seem to be lesser family details to me, but if you don't agree I am happy to change it. By now I've removed all sourcing from the younger Winckel regarding the Flight to Java. I managed to source some material to Hurst, while I have removed other material. 


 * I see no reliable evidence that Winckel was awarded the DSO or DFC. If that were the case, the awards should appear in a search of The London Gazette online, and I couldn't find them there.
 * I have just repeated what I've seen in the sources. If you are not able to find them with your experience it might be best to remove it from the article. I did however find an image on a forum of his medals and other information which were displayed in a Dutch museum. You can see it here. http://www.onderscheidingenforum.nl/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1370&start=25 It also has an explanation of the medals. In order from left to right they are the Bronze Lion, Airman's Cross (Vliegerkruis in Dutch, wich might have caused some confusion with the DFC?), the Dutch Oorlogsherinneringskruis, the Dutch Ereteken voor Orde en Vrede, and an unidentified New Zealand Medal. I presume his DSO, DFC would have been there if he earned them. So that supports your idea. DSO and DFC now removed


 * There are several other reliable sources available online that you could use to flesh out details:
 * Australia Under Attack at Australian War Memorial
 * Air Power and Wars of National Liberation at the RAAF's Air Power Development Centre.
 * The official history of Australia in the war at Australian War Memorial -- doesn't mention Winckel but includes more detail of the raid.
 * I am going to work on this. The first one did not offer new material, I incorporated the material from the second one. Nice find!


 * Googlebooks reveals Winckel's name mentioned in many books -- I also notice that according to the WP article Attack on Broome, Tom Lewis and Peter Ingman suggest that perhaps a US B-24 shot down Kudo, but there's no preview of the book at Google to check.
 * Most Google Books are however purely on the attack on Broome and repeat the same thing over and over again. I think Winckel is generally credited with shooting down Kudo.
 * Yes, it looks like Lewis and Ingman are the only ones who may be suggesting something else. Without being able to read the source, however, I'm not sure that we should assume that the Attack on Broome article has interpreted the book's conclusions precisely. If on the other hand one of us gets hold of the book and finds that this is in fact what they're saying, it would probably warrant a footnote in this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, they present an interesting idea which should be in the article if it could be backed up with access to the source.

Summary -- As I said up front, and interesting article that certainly merits its place in WP, but I'm afraid I have serious reservations concerning the sources, and the article would need revision for me to consider passing it as GA. I don't know if you have the time or resources to do that, because it should take place in the next seven days. Let me know what you think, I'll place this on hold for the moment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made some further improvements to the article. Most importantly,I think I've taken care of the NPOV sourcing issues which you mentioned. Crispulop (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, just a note that I am watching this, will aim to go through your changes/responses this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, my apologies again for delays. I'm pretty satisfied with the referencing now, thank you for acting on the suggestions. Glad the bit about Nini proved useful -- if only the source could've gone further and talked about when she was released from the camp (assuming she was eventually) but we can't help that. I've lightly copyedited again in the wake of your changes and will be passing as GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad it was up to GA-standards. Once again thank you for your contributions. Crispulop (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)