Talk:Junkers Ju 87/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):
 * The fact that Hans-Ulrich Rudel was the most notable Stuka ace is certainly relevant, but I'm not so sure that the extended information on him is relevant in the lead.
 * (See discussion below.)
 * There are two spelling for the given name of the Junkers test pilot: Willy and Willi Neuenhofen
 * …and climb to 1875 (6,000 ft)… 1875 meters, right?
 * … reached the exceptable structural strength requirements… Should that be acceptable?
 * …flight duration of s hours and 15 minutes. I'm guessing that should be a 5 and not an s?
 * Glad I asked and didn't just change it to 5! — Bellhalla (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What's a Kette? It's used in the "Poland" section without explanation.
 * Should the headings after "Second World War" from "Poland" on, be demoted one level, since all are in WWII? Same goes for the headings under "Eastern front"
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are many places where information is not cited. These range from single sentences presenting facts or figures up to multiple paragraphs. In the section "North Africa and the Mediterranean" there are two citations for the first five paragraphs, covering, at most, three sentences of information.
 * Some places where paragraphs have no citations whatsoever are: one each in "Early development", "Ju 87A", two each in the "Poland" and "Norway" sections, three in "North Africa and the Mediterranean". Doubtless there are more.
 * Other places where information is not cited include: The final two sentences of the second paragraph of section "Ju 87D",
 * Very much improved. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * File:Ju 87D-1.jpg is properly tagged and has a fair use rationale, but I'm not sure I'm buying what it's selling. With the myriad German Archive photos in Commons, with many already incorporated into this arrticle, it's a bit of a stretch to say that there's a need for this or any non-free photograph.
 * 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):
 * File:Ju 87D-1.jpg is properly tagged and has a fair use rationale, but I'm not sure I'm buying what it's selling. With the myriad German Archive photos in Commons, with many already incorporated into this arrticle, it's a bit of a stretch to say that there's a need for this or any non-free photograph.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

The big issue preventing this from passing the GA review is the referencing, where there are large expanses of text with no citations whatsoever. In such a detailed article as this, I'm not sure how quickly these problems might be addressed. There are some prose issues, but they are all relatively minor. I will give the benefit of the doubt and place the article on hold for seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments
All done. Just three points:
 * Rudel is mentioned as he is the most decorated German in the Wehrmacht. On the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article, it names it's famous and well known pilots in the lead. The article is not as well sourced as the Ju 87 one, and there are 30+ citation tags, yet it made it to GA.
 * Perhaps I didn't express my thoughts on Rudel well enough. Mentioning him in the lead is entirely appropriate; a full biography is not. The lead section is supposed to summarize the major points of the article. Look at it this way: there are thirteen sentences in the lead and two of them, about 15% of the total, are about Rudel. Descriptions of Rudel and his actions do not comprise 15% of the whole article. I think a sentence like: "Hans-Ulrich Rudel, the most highly decorated German serviceman of the Second World War, was the most notable Stuka ace." would give enough information for the lead, since this article is about the airplane, not Rudel. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article, I did not evaluate that article for GA status so I can't comment on the thought processes behind the reviewer. It looks like you initiated a GA reassessment for that article, which seems right in my view. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Citations have been corrected (I think). I wrote this article and thus I own the material used, so if you have any concerns about citations just let me know. Dapi89 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead Image
There are not many Ju 87 pics in the archives that I can see. Most do not display the whole machine. The only ones I can find are the Ju 87G, but I feel it would be better to have a Ju 87B or Ju 87D as they were the two main types. None of these appear. Dapi89 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would reword the fair use rationale with those points. As the rationale now reads, it doesn't identify that this is a specific model or a picture that shows the whole machine, and thus worthy of use. As far as the archives images, I was referring to the many that are already included in this article. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ciations
All figures have citation provided for them now. Some do not have citations directly after them, but at the end of a following sentence. Dapi89 (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The referencing is very much improved. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I think the Rudel info in the lead is a bit much, and that the fair use rationale for the lead image needs to make a stronger case, neither of those prevent it from fulfilling the GA requirements, so I am passing the article. This is a very strong article and I encourage you to pursue featured article status. Good luck with your future editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
It was the first one I have done more or less on my own. Thanks! Dapi89 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)