Talk:Vecihi Hürkuş/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gazozlu (talk · contribs) 17:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Almost
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Generally good, intro/summary can be cleared up a bit.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Sources are all respectable and there are no outstanding reasons not to include any of the used sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * A good complete article.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The primary source of his own book has been used responsibly.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images selection is very appropriate and there is no 'missing' images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Almost ready to pass, the article is quite good and with a little work can potentially become a Feature Article quite soon. For now some things need clarification including:
 * Intro Section
 * In intro Paragraph may need more clarity on what nargin is, POW camp on Nargin, just saying Nargin is not clear about what actually happened?
 * Clarified that it's a POW camp.
 * Good, i reworded it a bit too. ✅


 * He was bombing Greek positions in the war, does that really mean he is a Civil Pilot and not a military pilot? Or was this a case of him being a civil pilot and he just happened to have bombs with him in his civilian plane that he decided to drop on the Greek positions?
 * It's unclear from the source. Removed "civil".
 * Ok✅


 * "Trying to bomb Greek forces", Implies that his involvement in the war culminated that he failed and hit friendly troops instead. What really happened is something else. Maybe reduce that to "During the Turkish War of Independence he was involved in bombing Greek forces." And move the details including the information and specific wording "friendly fire" to the part of the article that talks about this in detail.
 * Reworded lead.
 * Good✅


 * Third paragraph gets kind of listy, maybe it can have a better flow.
 * Reworded.
 * Is the cause of death important enough to be in lead? Place of his death? Place of birth isn't even in the lead.
 * I mean, people tend to die only once in their lives, so. Added his place of birth.
 * Perhaps place of death is ok but specific cause of death i think is at least less impotrant than the fact that he died in debt due to the financial hardships he faced as a result of the airline that he founded which isn't mentioned. Presonally I would just only mention the death year given that the significance of the place and cause of death is small compared to what most of the article is about. The section of the article that talks about his death mentions only 2 more thing than is already mentioned in the introduction. That is that he was in a coma and was taken to the Medical Academy.
 * Removed.
 * Good✅
 * Also I would maybe mention the name of the magazine instead of saying a magazine.
 * Added Kanatlılar.
 * Good ✅


 * Military Career
 * "decided to drop a bomb as it seemed grizzly." it is unclear why he decided to drop the bomb.
 * Those were the tents. Reworded.
 * Needs more clarity why it is relevant that those tents were gray. Were the Greeks tents typically gray? If you know, then it's better to clarify why he bombed them because they are gray. If you don't know, then better to not mention that they were gray OR or do mention that they are gray but not word it as a reason that he bombed the tents. Because if you say he bombed them because they were gray you should also say why. (also see next comment in combination)
 * The source specifically mentions that the reason behind the dropping was because the tents were gray, but no further explanation. So, we can remove the "gray" detail, but that would make it look like he dropped them based on nothing like it's War Thunder, which seems off. Wording it differently and not including that as the reason would get my preference, but I'd still rather keep the current wording.
 * Ok, it seems like the source considers it common knowledge in that case that the general issue tents of Greek forces tended to be gray. In that case the part where you mention gray should have a footnote clarifying the fact that "Bla bla bla at this time Greek forces used gray tents" if you can manage to find a source about this. Pending further discussion.
 * Still looking.
 * Played around with the searchbar of DergiPark quite a bit, but nothing found.
 * Okay, I think something like this should be clarified because it poses an unanswered question, but it is ok for now. ✅


 * "Shocked by this friendly fire incident, Hürkuş offered to" here you imply that the friendly fire incident was that the bomb that Hurkus dropped? Better make that explicit or more clear.
 * Changed to "his mistake". The bomb he dropped was indeed on Turkish forces.
 * Maybe clarify this earlier too, Something like "he dropped the bomb on the tents, but it turns out they were actually Turkish tents", "He learned of this when he got a telegraph when he landed in Usak...."
 * Made a few changes.
 * Good ✅


 * "On 25 March, he had an engine failure" So was he doing multiple bombing runs until engine failure on 25 March?
 * Yep. Addded "multiple times" to the sentence before.
 * Maybe clarify a bit more, something like "Until 25 March when he had an engine failure" If that is correct.
 * Reworded.
 * It's OK, something like "was involved in multiple bombing runs until the 25th when the plane experienced engine failure" would be clearer ✅


 * Post-war career
 * "Hürkuş tried to get the K-VI back, but "was met with lingering"." maybe can be more clear. He didn't get the plane? The lingering was intentional?
 * That's a quote from his own book. He didn't get the plane, which was destroyed later. Added a sentence copied from Vecihi K-VI to clarify.
 * Ok, i changed it, see if you agree.✅
 * Yep. That's pretty much what happened.
 * Ok. ✅


 * See Also
 * I see him as being more similar with people like Anthony Fokker than random Turkish and Ottoman pilots.
 * I normally don't add these "See also" sections, but this was already here when I expanded this. But yeah, Fokker seems a better "See also". I've kept Fesa Evrensev as well, as he was the head of TTaC. I've seen his name mentioned in a few of the sources I used here.
 * Good idea. Also added Hürkuş to Fokker.✅


 * "Hürkuş blamed the TTaC as they hadn't given any financial support" to the club?
 * Added.
 * Good.	✅


 * "and his payment from the government for his national service was taken away" Was it taken away because it automatically went to servicing his debts? Or was it taken away because of sanctions against Hurkus airlines?
 * Changed to "confiscated". It's not clarified in the source why, but confiscation generally happens due to debt.
 * Ok, changed to even.	✅


 * Personal life
 * So was he known as Faham oglu Vecihi until the surname law?
 * The source says "Vecihi Faham".
 * Better to include that in the early life section in some way. Something like (Known at that time as "" etc.)✅
 * Moved Vecihi Faham to the early life section.
 * Good✅


 * I've responded to your comments, . ~Styyx Talk ? 10:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Second round done, . ~Styyx Talk ? 15:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

-However do include information about him being the first Turkish Pilot to shoot down a Russian plane in the intro.
 * So the article is looking good, it passes the Good Article Criteria with the clarifications and other changes that have been made during the review.
 * This is already in the lead.
 * whoops must have overlooked that in the final scan--Gazozlu (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There is some room for improvement that I think can be worked on, on the way to FA status should you want to apply for that (because it does already meet some of the FA criteria) at some point in the future such as:
 * The contents should be a bit more comprehensive as there is more to say about Vecihi Hürkuş, for example:
 * 1. his factory "Vecihi Faham Tayyare İnşa Fabrikası" that operated from (1930-1942) is not specifically mentioned or talked about in the article, just his work and a factory is only implied.
 * 2. the movies being made/that have been made about Vecihi Hürkuş or that have him as a character
 * -also documentaries
 * So, I was supposed to write this stuff in the legacy section, but I may or may not have... forgotten.
 * Yes the legacy section is looking a bit small. Also, actually, include that he is seen as a sort of national hero in Turkey these days and as a pioneer of the Turkish aviation industry along with Nuri Demirağ. --Gazozlu (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * -also books written about him by well known authors (if there are)
 * 3. More detail on the time at which and for what specific reason he received the (award) Medal of Independence
 * 4. More detail about when and why he received each of his commendations from the Gand National Assembly
 * 5. Before he was captured by the Russians he made a crash landing, include about him burning his plane and why he burned it
 * 6. More details on how he escaped the Nargin prison camp
 * 7. His venture of doing earial explorations for raw resources
 * 8. His funeral.
 * The citations regarding Vecihis own words/ translated quotes that are sourced from his book are, probably, better with in-text attribution that cites Vecihis words.
 * A list of his publications such as his article "İlk Türk tayyaresini nasıl yaptım" in Resimli Ay magazine
 * A bit more emphasis on the beurocratic challanges he faced, he brought his plane all the way to checkoslovakia to bypass the beurocracy after all so there must be quite a story there.
 * More context on the relationship with Ataturk, Ataturk implementing a new law inspired by Hurkus
 * Image(s) of his technical drawings
 * Possible combination of Early life and Personal life sections.--Gazozlu (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Anyway, . Thanks a lot for the review and the final recommendations. If you happen to find more sources, feel free to drop them on the talk page of the article or my own talk. ~Styyx Talk ? 21:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Allrigt, will drop my findings on the talkpage. Overall good job on the article.--Gazozlu (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)