Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Helmut Lent/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:13, 25 January 2010.

Helmut Lent

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I want to bring this article to the next level. I believe it may meet the featured article criteria. Please let me know how to improve. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review: all photos are from the Bundesarchiv; as far as Commons is concerned, these images are CC-licensed for free use. The Nazi flag and Luftwaffe insignia are in the public domain.  Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Conditional support:
 * "To be considered an ace, a pilot must be credited with shooting down five or more enemy aircraft during aerial combat; Lent shot down 110 aircraft, 103 of them at night."
 * The explanation of "ace" seems a bit jarring here. I suggest changing the two sentences to "Lent shot down 110 aircraft, 103 of them at night, more than the target of five enemy aircraft required for the title of ace."
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not enamoured with the Summary of career section. Most (if not all) of its content has been expressed in prose in the article.  I fail to see why there is a need for References in the Wehrmachtbericht sub-section either.
 * The main reason for breaking out the references in the Wehrmachtbericht is that I want to give the reader an easy overview and secondly because they are my personal translation of the original German text. Further the style I used here is copied from two other featured articles Heinrich Bär and Werner Mölders. I'd like to see how others feel about this MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A one-sentence Legacy section does not look good. Integrate the sentence into the Death sub-section.  The same goes for the circumstances that surround Lent's medals in the Awards sub-section.
 * Agree, I combined the legacy section with the circumstances surrounding his awards. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There seems to be repetitive linking; Leutnant, Oberleutnant, and others seem to be linked at least three times in the main text.
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fraschka, Günther (1994) Knights of the Reich is not used.
 * Schaulen, Fritjof (2004) Eichenlaubträger 1940–1945 Zeitgeschichte in Farbe II Ihlefeld – Primozic is not used.
 * Scutts, Jerry (1998) German Night Fighter Aces of World War 2 is not used.
 * Williamson, Gordon (2006) Knight's Cross with Diamonds Recipients 1941–45 is not used.
 * All four sources now referenced. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (Add-on) The article is mostly based on the Hinchliffe source, and I wonder if the heavy emphasis might lead to a loss of certain aspects of the man. Williamson's Knight's Cross with Diamonds Recipients mentions that Lent "initially hated night flying and had to be persuaded against a transfer back to day fighters."  This is interesting, yet the article does not speak of Lent's attitude to his work.  Was it missed or was Williamson wrong?  Spick seems to have expounded on Lent's attitude in Aces of the Reich.  It also seems that Lent would have a friendly rival in night fighter kills in the form of Schnauffer (a former subordinate of Lent's), according to Constable and Toliver's Horrido!: Fighter aces of the Luftwaffe.  It seems the article falls a bit short of comprehensiveness here.  Jappalang (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point! This is an omission on my part. Peter Hinchliffe is the best and most thorough source I have come across. I added a paragraph indicating his initial reluctance to become a night fighter. Most other sources have condensed the information to the point of making it "untruthful". I therefore can only advise to follow Hinchliffe's reference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the "rivalry" between Schnauffer and Lent? Lent is supposed to be Nazi Germany's second highest-ranked night fighter pilot in terms of kills (behind Schnauffer).  Is that notable to be of mention?  If Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer is the world's top-scoring night fighter pilot (according to his article), does that not make Lent the second?  Jappalang (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I read I wouldn't say that his ambition as a fighter pilot distinguished itself from that of others. The rivalry between Lent and Schnaufer, at least to my interpretation of the sources, does not excel to the point that I would want to mention it here. There were others, Sayn-Wittgenstein for instance, who were driven or even obsessed by the idea to be top scoring fighter pilot. But this is something to be addressed in his article not Lent's. MisterBee1966 (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was driving at the point that Lent's achievement is his status as the second highest ranking night fighter pilot (global or Germany only?). It seems a notable achievement (whether he wanted it or not), but is not mentioned in the article.  If he and Schnauffer had a well-reported rivalry, it would flesh out more, but that does not seem the case now.  Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I added a sentence putting his achievement in context. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the the first of the sentences added might be redundant, and tweaked accordingly. You might want to check my tweak and rewrite or revert it.  Whether it requires the Williamson cite should also be checked.  Note that if there are reliable sources who proclaim Lent as the "second highest scoring" night ace, then it should be made explicit in the article because right now, the article does not state if Lent is second, third, or fourth in such rankings.  Jappalang (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article's prose looks good to me at a cursory glance. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel Summary section is superfluous, and without in-depth knowledge of the subject, I am not certain if all sources have been covered. However, the current article is very comprehensive for a WWII pilot who died then, and I feel any other sources of information would likely not add so much that the current article can be thought of as failing WP:WIAFA 1b.  So unless a substantial number opposes the Summary section with reason, my support is behind this article.  Jappalang (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No dab links, and dates are consistent Day Month Year throughout—good. --an odd name 04:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Missing ref: Fraschka 1989. &bull; Ling.Nut 16:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, only one Fraschka and correct date is 1994 MisterBee1966 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support.
 * I should qualify my support by mentioning that I contributed as a copy editor to this article, but not to its content. There may be an occasional prose hiccup, but there shouldn't be much. That said, I have a couple of comments to make:
 * first, I appreciated the editor's effort to maintain a fair and balanced pov throughout the article (and indeed, through the article's creation).
 * second, unlike one of the other reviewers (above), I liked the inclusion of the Wehrmachts Bericht section separate from the text. Yes, indeed, it could have been incorporated directly into the article, regardless of the fact that it is B's translation, and not a published one.  But in other articles he has edited he has used the same format, so, for consistency's sake on this project, I think it belongs separately and, perhaps more importantly, it is primary source material, included separately to enhance the article.
 * third, Hinchcliffe, as a dominant source, seemed fair to me. A lot of articles rely on one or two sources as their "primary" (main) secondary source, especially when that source is the "go-to" source for the subject.

That said, it's a stylish and well-done article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WeakSupport

I think that the article is very well written, but I have a few concerns before I support. Additionally below are the things I did to check the article.

Lede - AWB Edits DAB links Alt text External links Dates
 * Well written
 * seems to be the proper length
 * does a good job of summerizing the article
 * Concern - It is typically frowned upon to have references in the lede. It appears that most of the references in the lede are also detailed later in the article so I would recommend removing them.
 * I ran the article through AWB and didn't find anything significant there.
 * There are no disambiguous links
 * Alt text looks good, although a couple are rather long.
 * There doesn't seem to be any significant problems here
 * The dates throughout the article appear consistent using the Day Month Year format.
 * Concern - The dates in the References in the Wehrmachtbericht table under the summery of career section appear on more than one row. I would recommend using the DTS template to fix this allowing the entire date to be on one row.
 * done – interesting someone had changed this. I can only hope that it stays this way now.MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Summery of career section
 * This section is were you lost me. I think this whole section needs to be cleanup up. The article otherwise is very well written but this section really pulls it down for me.
 * Could you please let me know what exactly you are referring to? This section has the same layout as the same section on Heinrich Bär and Werner Mölders articles, both at FA-Class. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Other than these things good job. --Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed my Comment to a weak support based on the evidence you proveded with the previously approved articles. I still do not like the layout of the Career section however and think that it should be cleaned up regardless of how the other articles appear. Basically I think that an article of this status shouldn't have what amounts to a series of bullets and should be rewritten to be in a more prose format. This also brings up an issue for me that has been a contentious topic to many and that is how to display military ribbons and badges. To me having a bunch of bullets doesn't provide the same information as a graphical display such as the one on Smedley Butler. Since some do not like the graphical display I think we should provide some kind of prose wording to better inform the reader about the information related to these military decorations. I served in the U.S. military and am knowledgable on that but I couldn't tell you a thing about these german ones. For example, what do the extra devices on the Cross for Swords and diamonds look like, are these ribbons displayed in order of how they would be displayed on the uniform or are they in chronological order, are they authorized to be worn as ribbons or are they medals only (which is a practice used by some militaries) when were they recieved, who gave it to him, are there any citations that can be added stating what he recieved them for (such as the Smedley Butler article (and I know that it is not quite to FA status yet either). Basically I just think that there is other information that can be provided to allow for a more readible and professional looking layout of the sectiom. Even if a graphical display is not used (which I personally think is a better but not everyone does). I hope this helps and good luck on getting it passed. --Kumioko (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, but I would suggest scrapping the promotions section since it serves no real purpose for the article. Otherwise, ti does appear that everything is in order for the FA star. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Comments Support My comments have been satisfactorily addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How could there be a conflict with Czechoslovakia in September 1938? Germany didn't occupy the Sudetenland until early October.
 * True! But pressure was applied before that so I changed the wording slightly to give a more preparation character. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankfurt on the Oder river This reads oddly. Why not use the contemporary name of Frankfurt an der Oder?
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This also reads oddly: During the prelude of World War II. How about "Before the start of World War II"?
 * I quite like it, but if this is a show stopper I will change it MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It needs to be changed; I can't quite articulate it, but it's not correct English.
 * Here's some more: Lent flew a further mission on 3 September and another on 4 September. At this point of the campaign, when the Polish Air Force was all but defeated, that the tactical use of Bf 110s switched from bomber escort to ground-attack.
 * Reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a link for the He 111?
 * Its first occurrence in the article is linked in section “World War II”. I thought that over-linking should be avoided.

MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right, I missed the first link.
 * For his actions in the Polish campaign Lent was awarded one of the first Iron Cross 2nd class on 21 September 1939 of World War II. Wouldn't it read better if the date was given after the bit about one of the first EKIIs of WW2?
 * Indeed, now fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I./ZG 76 relocated to Stuttgart area isn't there a missing 'the' here?
 * You are right. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Helmut Lent was ordered to intercept and engage the attacking bomber force and after refuelling—Lent had just landed at Jever from an armed patrol—claimed three more Wellingtons When did he shoot down the first ones?
 * Good spot, they were his first, I remove 'more' MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Define 'heavies'
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Define 'Nachtjagdstaffel'
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't care about the promotion section; just so long as they're integrated into the main body, which I believe they are.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a severe problem here with missing WP:NBSPs, causing many of the words and terms to wrap on my screen: please fix, I left samples. Also, it would be good if the article could try to stick to one convention on translations:  some use the German word with English translation in English, others use the English word with translation in German, and others have no translation. These won't hold up promotion, but I hope they will be addressed soon, and not repeate on MilHist articles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.