Talk:Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * First paragraph of lead goes into too much detail: third through sixth sentences could be summed up as: "Like many fighter units of the Luftwaffe, JG 1 was reorganized several times and served as a donor unit during the war to enlarge other fighter wings."
 * Point incorporated. However statement regarding history retained as its historically significant in counting scores. Perseus71 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better wording with an appropriate level of detail. Also, with the edit notice on the article I didn't want to create an edit conflict, but the in the last sentence of this first paragraph, I would suggest "the history of JG 1 is inextricably linked" rather than "the history of "JG 1" would be inextricably linked" — Bellhalla (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * weasel words in last sentence of lead: Who said this? Also, as an aside, do you mean coincidentally rather than ironically?
 * The weasel words removed. I do mean ironically since its the only unit to do so. Perseus71 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent presentation of German words and English translations. In some cases the German is presented first with English in parentheses, while in others it's the reverse. In one case, Kette, there is no translation. Given that this is the English Wikipedia, my preference would be for English first with the lang-de template in parentheses.
 * This is something of a debatable point with the Peer Reviewers evenly divided on which one to put first. I will make sure its consistent. Perseus71 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All the instances have been made consistent with German term in the parenthesis after the English Translation. Perseus71 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consistency is good. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When referring to the unit as "JG 1", it would be helpful to have a non-breaking space so that JG and 1 don't end up on different lines. (If you are like me and hate the "&amp;nbsp;", you can copy this: "JG 1" (which has a non-breaking space character in it).
 * The change is made except in case of Designations like I./JG 1 etc. Perseus71 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I did not word my point clearly, but what I meant for you to copy what was inside the quotation marks. The unit designation shouldn't have the quote marks around it.— Bellhalla (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quotation Marks removed.Perseus71 (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I went through and removed a few more and inserted the non-breaking space where necessary. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the first sentence of "Formation history", "Bf 109" is neither linked nor explained.
 * Linked to main Article. Perseus71 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What does "numerical pride of place" mean? It's not a phrase with which I am familiar.
 * Historically Being Numbered as First Wing of Luftwaffe was a big deal. It would be considered as first fighter wing of reformed Luftwaffe. It had a lot if pride attached. Please refer to "Jagdgeschwader 27 'Afrika" - John WealPerseus71 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain that in the article without using such an unusual phrase? — Bellhalla (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase is replaced with a more detailed explanation. The phrase was used in the book referenced. Perseus71 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for the honorifics: "Dr. Erich Mix was replaced by …" → "Erich Mix was replaced by …". Same with his listing farther down in the article as well.
 * Change incorporated. Perseus71 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about: "As a result, JG 1 ceased to exist for [a specific period of time]." instead of: "This caused JG 1 ceasing to exist for a period of time."
 * Incorporated with a slightly different variation. Perseus71 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It still looks like it's the same wording (in section "Group I./JG 1") — Bellhalla (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed the text. Perseus71 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Charts in section "Organization structure":
 * Why is the text of differing sizes in the different sections? Is that intentional?
 * It was an ommission. Its been corrected. Perseus71 (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The dates don't sort chronologically, which could be fixed with dts, but what does sortability accomplish in this case, especially since the charts are so short?
 * Point noted and implemented. Perseus71 (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In section "Group IV./JG 1" the chart comes immediately after the lower-level heading. Since the text flows around the charts as with an image, I would advise following WP:IMAGE and moving the table so that it's not directly under a lower-level heading.
 * The table is moved appropriately. Perseus71 (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Dissolution" section starts off talking about the fuel capacity of a particular plane (without providing any context), rather than discussing the dissolution of the unit. (A good way to think about major sections like this is to consider this: Would someone linking directly to this section have any idea what was being discussed without having to scroll up and read the whole article?)
 * The He162 related information is moved to preceding section. Perseus71 (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the "Commanding officers" section, it would be helpful to have a sentence explaining the time gaps. Something as simple as "[Unit name] was formed in [month year], was disbanded in [month year], and reestablished in [month year]" before each list. This helps convey that the information is not an incomplete list, for example, and helps break up the list-after-list-after-list structure.
 * Incorporated. Perseus71 (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are entire paragraphs and one entire section without any references at all
 * The Section on "Organization Structure" is an extract/based on original article. That article is refrenced with {Main} tag. As to the paragraphs, there are only secondary references. I will try and add primary references. Perseus71 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Outside of summary style sections, I see these paragraphs without any references:
 * final paragraph of "Formation history"
 * second and third paragraphs of "Unit emblem and color schemes"
 * third, fourth, and final paragraph of "Notable successes and losses"
 * None of the lists within "Commanding officers"
 * All the instance documented above are corrected. The lists of Commanding officers were added to the article by someone else. I have left a message to them to provide the references. I have come across some of the changes in my reference but not in a list form. Perseus71 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have finally added a citation from a secondary source. Perseus71 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some stray references in between some paragraphs
 * The citations are moved to the end of paragraph. Perseus71 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Located at the end of section "Group I./JG 1" and right before section "Group II./JG 1" is the reference [13], unattached to any paragraph. This is the type of 'stray' reference that I'm talking about. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both the instances are the references for the tables. It seems to be some formatting issue I can't seem to figure out. I am not sure how to go about providing references for tables.Perseus71 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally! Got a solution to the problem! Its now corrected. Perseus71 (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what they were for. Good solution. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In some places where there are consecutive references at the end of a sentence, the notes are not in numerical order as suggested by the MOS. Example: last sentence of section "Headquarters Flight JG 1"
 * The entries are placed correctly to make notes in Numerical Order. Perseus71 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The works listed in the References section are not in alphabetical order
 * The Referenced are sorted alphabetically. Perseus71 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I'm concerned about the notability of the casualty lists in two of the subsections of "Wartime history". I intend no disrespect to any men that died for their country, but are all of these men really notable? And, if they are judged to be notable, are they more notable than men unlisted in the other "Wartime history" sections that died in other phases of the war?
 * If you are referring to the men Died as a result of Operation Bodenplatte in that section, then those were only for the case someone links directly to this section. For now I have moved that list to the "Missing and killed in action" Section. Is your intent to not have such list at all ?Perseus71 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My viewpoint is that a list of casualties should only contain notable (i.e. they either have or should have a Wikipedia article about them) casualties. Not everyone who dies in a war is notable (again intending no disrespect to anyone). If a list of all casualties is to be include—which is, in my view, a big if, given that Wikipedia is intended for a general audience—it really should be all casualties, not just the casualties from a particular operation. So in order of my preference:
 * List of Notable casualties only
 * No list (with discussion of notable casualties in the text)
 * List of all casualties, not just some from one operation
 * — Bellhalla (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the Missing and killed in action section has all the known casualties. This I believe complies with your point 3 above. If this section is still not satisfactory then I will remove it altogether. I'd like to know your thoughts on keeping this information on Wikipedia in some other form like sub article or such ? Please let me know. Perseus71 (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article says that 464 pilots were killed in action, but I see only about 10% of that number in the two charts combined. Am I not getting something, or are 90% of the casualities unknown? — Bellhalla (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say for a fact that 90 % of the casualties are unknown. But I believe that from all the creditable references that I was able to gather, I could not find a complete exhaustive list of casualties. If you feel that the list should not be provided then perhaps can we comment it out and request a consensus on the same from authors of other JG wings' article ? Perseus71 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That entire section containing the list is commented out. Perseus71 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the tables for notable, single actions are MOST important. You have to understand that the table of the 1/1/45 relates not just to a day of action, but an entire operations - the last major ofensive by the Luftwaffe in the war. This must stay where it is. Dapi89 (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a much stronger article without a partial list of casualties. A pilot that died on 1 January 1940 is no more and no less notable than a pilot that died on 1 January 1945. By including a partial list here in this article about the history of a particular unit (and not a particular battle or operation), we at Wikipedia would be implicitly saying that these pilots were more important than those pilots, which goes against the core policy of neutral point-of-view. If actions of that particular day, and the pilots lost therein, are especially notable, perhaps they need an article of their own? — Bellhalla (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * Image:Hans Philipp.jpg is tagged as a copyrighted image, but there is no Fair Use rationale for this article.
 * Fair use Rationale added to the image for use in the article Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II).Perseus71 (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about the excessive use of non-free images, primarily the logos (12, by my count), which is contrary to WP:NFC criterion 3a which specifies "minimal use".
 * I have cut down to 4 emblem images. There is appropriate description to go with it. Perseus71 (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Using Image:JG1 New Logo.png in the infobox and Image:JG 1 Emblem.gif later in the article is particularly bad in my view since they are essentially the same.
 * The image duplication removed.
 * I would fully expect and fully endorse use of the logos mentioned in the "Unit emblem and color schemes", but the other logos, none of which are ever discussed in any detail (if at all), seem to be used primarily as decoration.
 * I wish I could accommodate all those images in the "Unit emblem and color schemes" Section. However the would get crowded real fast. I have tried to remove some of the images. Especially those that are not discussed in the body. Perseus71 (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As of now, there are a total of 4 Emblem images in the article with pretty much all discussed in the article in some form. Perseus71 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I'm a little concerned by the commenting out of some of these fair-use images with phrases like "soft deleted until…", I will assume good faith with the hope that this is until your inuse work is done. I would like to point out that this suggestion is driven by the Non-free content criteria an official policy of WP. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those tags are removed. Perseus71 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Several images are placed contrary to guidelines at WP:IMAGE, specifically in relation to images directly under lower-level headings; "Group I./JG 1" and "Aircraft of Jagdgeschwader 1", for example.
 * The images are relocated to comply with the standard. Perseus71 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placing on hold for seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job with the article, and good luck with it should you pursue A-Class or Featured Article status. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Several images are placed contrary to guidelines at WP:IMAGE, specifically in relation to images directly under lower-level headings; "Group I./JG 1" and "Aircraft of Jagdgeschwader 1", for example.
 * The images are relocated to comply with the standard. Perseus71 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placing on hold for seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job with the article, and good luck with it should you pursue A-Class or Featured Article status. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job with the article, and good luck with it should you pursue A-Class or Featured Article status. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)