Talk:Helmut Lent/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * still needs a copy edit to fix numerous misspellings
 * I think the issues have been addressed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lent's unit didn't convert to the Bf 108, which was an unarmed liaison aircraft, it received some and he learned how to fly them. I didn't think that the Ju 88 G-6 could carry four. How certain is it that the aircraft was carrying four or was he flying something else? More comments later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It did convert for training purposes to the Bf 108 as an interim solution prior to training on the Bf 109 and Bf 110. Yes, the Ju 88 had a crew of four (see Ju 88 article) and multiple sources state the same story about the circumstances causing his death. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Scroll down to the Ju 88G specification and you'll see that it was a three-seat aircraft; but this is a minor point. I still have problems with the Bf 108 conversion. III./JG 132 aka II./JG 141 was already equipped with early models of the Bf 109 by the time this is mentioned and I have a hard time believing that they were turned in for 108s, as I'm fairly certain that they didn't fully equip with 110s until mid-39 and kept 109s until then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want I can scan and post the pages that clearly state this as factual (see Hinchliffe). How should I handle this? What do you suggest? My sources say that they trained on the Bf 108 as an interim solution to the Bf 109 and Bf 110. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think that Hinchcliffe misunderstood the situation, but since my sources are in storage I'm going to pass it because I can't prove differently using only my faded memories.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)