Talk:Jagdgeschwader 11

Copy edit April 2010
Following a request at the Guild of Copy Editors, I am in the process of completing a full edit of this article. Following are some issues that I need clarified.
 * Betty Boom (42-3316) and Roundtrip Ticket (42-30285), and all three went down west of Sylt. - This sentences does not make sense. What is the 3rd one that went down?
 * It was the bomber mentioned in previous sentence. I have corrected the said sentence.


 * Hans-Heinrich Koenig credited with one each. - Not quite sure what this is trying to say. Should it be: "Hans-Heinrich Koenig was credited with one each."?
 * It was Specht,Knoke and Koenig credited one each. I have clarified the same.

I have done up to and including "Defense of Reich 1944", but I have to stop now. If anyone wishes to conitnue, please leave your notes here. Otherwise, I will have to continue this another time. -- S Masters (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Captain Lowell B. Smith with Lieutenants John Kennedy, Melvin R. Paisley and Flight Officer Dave Johnson.[clarification needed] - Is this the "Red" team?
 * Yes it is. So corrected.

I have now completed the copy edit, bar the issues above. Cheers. -- S Masters (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence their leaders although Staffelkapitän are mentioned here. - I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say.
 * Corrected for clarification.
 * I forgot to add that I do not check references when doing a copy edit, and do not look at it for WP:MoS compliance. -- S Masters (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have clarified the concerned sentences. My responses are embedded above. '  Perseus 71  talk 01:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping do that. I believe my work here is done and I am happy to add the WP:GOCE tag to this page. Good luck with the GA, and let me know if you need any more help. -- S Masters (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
There is a discussion here at WP MILHIST which refers to this article; one of the issues is the (maybe over-)use of non-English terms, which can make it irksome to read. I’ve had a look at the JG 1 article, and made a couple of changes in the introduction and “formation” sections, as a Hawarden Kite. What do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As part of the GA Review under progress, Sturmvogel 66 had changed the Introduction and the Formation to introduce German version in parenthesis with English version outside. I am afraid you have reverted the same. I personally tend to agree with MisterBee's POV. However, I have gone over this argument right about time JG 1 article was reviewed for A Class. There was a identical discussion at the time as well with a much less participation and even less steller coverage. As of now I see the point in what Sturmvogel 66 has said. I have been watching the discussion without participation as the last one drove me to take a break. '  Perseus 71  talk 00:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sonofabitch! You didn't even try to wait for a consensus before getting rid of all my laboriously added German language tags. I'd looked at your edits when you left the above message, but they weren't anything that I would have objected to, particularly since you hadn't actually deleted any of the tags. But now I'm playing Civ 4 for most of the evening and you've taken a couple of hours of silence as consent. Whatever the stance regarding German language terms adopted we need to at least mention them because many popular histories use them extensively. Thanks for the extra work!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, now I'm confused. I said I was making some changes to the Introduction and Formation section, to see how they flew, which is what I did. I didn't do the whole article, precisely because I didn't know how contentious they would be. I'm not clear what extra work I've caused, except to myself; if you didn't like them they could just be reverted (which you seem to have done).
 * I was trying to lessen the impact of loads of non-English terms, and taking the German: tag out seemed to be an alternative to deleting them altogether. The first one says its German; it should be pretty obvious the rest are, too. Though I'm of a mind that if the term isn't blue-linked, it doesn't serve much purpose except to obfuscate/be pretentious. I had also thought it'd be helpful to abbreviate the ranks, but I don't know what they would be.
 * Perhaps, if you don't like what I've done, you have an altenative, because AFAICS it's butting up against MOS:Foreign terms. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * PS I've made a couple of edits to officer ranks, again as a suggestion. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Intricate detail
Preserving here by providing this link; pls see edit summary for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)