Talk:Heinz Schnabel and Harry Wappler escape attempt/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I will do this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

We have the guts of a good, albeit small, article here. My initial thoughts are that the structure is the area that requires the most improvement so I am going to do some suggestions around this aspect primarily along with a few other comments on things that have caught my eye. Detailed comments may follow once the structure has been sorted.


 * Rather than the "Initial capture..." heading, I suggest "Background".
 * Done by . Kges1901 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * What kind of aircraft was Schnabel flying? (presumably a 109 but should be stated for certainty if it can be sourced).
 * Added. Kges1901 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The material on Wappler is disproportionate to Schabel and should be trimmed. Eg some of the details of the flight leading to his capture, names of his crew. The point being the first loss due to barrage balloons is interesting and should stay. Where does Harry come from?
 * Removed crew names and removed mention of 'Kurt' because most of the cited sources only call Wappler Harry, except for von Mullenheim-Rechberg who calls him 'Karl Wappler', presumably erroneously. The Wappler details just seems longer because there was more to his downing, but the same amount of specificity is also given for Schnabel Kges1901 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think there should be a separate section for Shap Wells, with location information, when Schnable and Wappler arrived, maybe its size (in number of inmates). In the current Wappler section it is referred to as a hotel and given a number; this may need explaining. (I've done some googling, found this link which may be useful, see the bit about the U-Boat hotel.
 * The exact date that Shnabel and Wappler arrived isn't given in the cited sources.
 * But what about the other details for Shap Wells? Zawed (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Shap Wells hotel has secondary source coverage in at least one academic book . So I might just create an article and link it from here. Kges1901 (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think some context for Shap Wells is necessary here. Zawed (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased it to mention that it was requisitioned, and that's why it had a number. Kges1901 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not happy with this. I consider that there should be a distinct section for the POW camp and a bit more explanation about it. I see that the nominator hasn't participated in this review. It shouldn't fall to other editors to do the necessary revision work. Zawed (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sources - not sure why you have chapter titles in some citations, they don't seem necessary.
 * Looking at the ISBNs, the books for which chapter titles are provided were cited using the ebook version so doing some mind reading here, L293D included them for additional verification because ebooks don't have the same type of page numbers Kges1901 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hope that is enough for you to make a start. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Noticed a dupe link: leutnant (and it should be lower case rather than capitalised as it is at present). Zawed (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Kges1901 (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Status query
Zawed, Kges1901, where does this review currently stand? The last comment and response was made nearly four weeks ago, the same day as the most recent edit to the article referred to in that response. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been remiss in not coming back to this. I still have a structure/content issue with the article and have reiterated this above. I'm inclined to fail this in the next few days as I don't think it should fall on other editors, such as Kges1901, to do the nominator's work (who hasn't participated in this review at all). Zawed (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the end, I just do not have enough interest in this subject to make the significant changes. : Now that you are back, would you be willing to participate in this review? Kges1901 (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been no action here for a couple of days so am failing this now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)