Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–45)/archive2


 * 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:54, 11 September 2010.

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

 * Nominator(s):   Perseus 71  talk 02:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is second time I am nominating this article. The First nomination has been archived here. The nomination got archived for one reason only. There were not many extensive comments on the subject of this article. As you can see, there were no opposes. Only Comments on the Sources and image copyrights.

My rationale for nomination is same as before. This article is predominantly about the organizational structure of Luftwaffe during the period of 1933 to 1945. This was the period when an Air Force was not yet recognized as a strategic armed force. One of the lesser known facts is that Luftwaffe during this time was probably the only force to have a tank division of its own. Point is, this article goes into the distinctive organizational structure compared to other contemporary Air Forces of the time. At the same time its not going into the the history of Luftwaffe.

From assessment standpoint, this article has undergone A class review and has been assessed to meed those criteria. A Peer review was conducted and is now archived. The Article also underwent a proper CopyEd by an editor from WP:GoCE. I think that at this point its in a good enough shape that it could be reviewed to see if it can be a FA candidate. The Sources of this article were extensively validated as part of the A Class review and the first nomination.   Perseus 71  talk 02:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Oppose after further consideration, based on concerns about sourcing (particularly the following inconsistencies). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will start fixing these in next few days.  Perseus 71  talk 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be more consistent in the way references are formatted. Consider: "United States War Deparment" vs "US War Department"; multiple-author references with second author first-name first vs last-name first; shortened citations with two authors using "and" vs "&"; etc.
 * This is done.  Perseus 71  talk 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's not - USWD still not consistent.
 * Found that one. corrected.  Perseus 71  talk 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Frieser and Greenwood 1995 or 2005?
 * Its 2005. The incorrect cite is corrected.  Perseus 71  talk 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Caldwell and Muller 2002 or 2007?
 * Its 2007. I have corrected it.  Perseus 71  talk 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the book by Lepage have one author or two? The formatting leaves this unclear
 * Its just one author called Jean Denis G. G. Lepage.  Perseus 71  talk 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Formatting is still unclear here.
 * I have tried to change. Not sure what else I can do.  Perseus 71  talk 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the second author of the Taylor book Percivale John or John Percivale? Again, unclear formatting (and Google search suggests neither is correct?)
 * Its the one author called Alan John Percivale Taylor. I have made corrections.   Perseus 71  talk 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the second author of the Williamson book Andrew Stephen or Stephen Andrew?
 * Its Stephen Andrew.  Perseus 71  talk 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Deighton appears only in References, not in Citations
 * Book removed  Perseus 71  talk 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have two Mitcham 2007s on the Reference list, but the Citations don't consistently distinguish between the two (one says 2007-b - which one does this refer to? What about the one that says only 2007?)
 * Updated.  Perseus 71  talk 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but now you have Mitcham-a and 2007-b - use a consistent formatting
 * Okay, corrected that one.  Perseus 71  talk 00:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weal 2001 appears only on the Reference list
 * removed.  Perseus 71  talk 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Check publisher for Caldwell
 * Its MBI Publishing Company and correct.  Perseus 71  talk 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The linked page gives the publisher as Greenhill Books.


 * comment - stylistic issues:
 * theres a lot of paratheneses (and in some case double parenthesis (brackets within brackets)) in use for the German words and abbreviations. Further the German word and the link to German language taking the wikilinks eg the article has " formed a Luftwaffe high Command (German: Oberkommando der Luftwaffe) for operational management" which seems to my mind clumsy compared to "formed a high Command (the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe) for operational management of the Luftwaffe" GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. However I have been scolded time and again for using too many German languages and making the article unreadable. So finally I have decided to follow WP guidelines to the letter with English words on first use with German words in parenthesis. At second use simply use German word in italics.  Perseus 71  talk 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead - introduces the expansion of the Luftwaffe to have its own ground troops and goes on to list some of them, but not the why of it. How about dropping the list of ground units for a sentence on the reason for these units? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.   Perseus 71  talk 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick question is there a reason the article is not named "Organization of the Luftwaffe in the Wermacht" instead of the year period? Nergaal (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Primarily because Luftwaffe of this period is only a specific period of the history of modern Luftwaffe. Secondarily, it's just a slight emphasis on the distinction that the Luftwaffe of this period was a air force formed as a Strategic force/instrument part of of war and not part of Army or Navy. I guess we could call it Luftwaffe of the Wehrmacht. But then we will need to rename History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) too.    Perseus 71  talk 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Germany was prohibited from having a military air force." military is redundant. There is also a with noun verbing in the lead  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  05:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected.  Perseus 71  talk 01:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * some inconsistancies between sections and the main article link,
 * Organization_of_the_Luftwaffe_(1933–1945) starts with In early 1942, in the east, the Luftwaffe formed seven... while the main article says The divisions were originally authorized in October 1942...
 * The main article is an underdeveloped stub. The information there does not have proper books cited to back the facts. This article has come from a similar stub level to FAC through rigorous reviews of GAN and ACR. I am perfectly happy to move the Main Links to See also section if that helps.  Perseus 71  talk 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Organization_of_the_Luftwaffe_(1933–1945) doesnt appear to be Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring which according to this article(FAC article) was formed in 1944 where as the main article says it was formed in 1933. Additionally the FAC article highlights 1937 as important as well as it was formed In late 1937, volunteers for the Paratroop Corps were combined in the I.Jäger–Battalion. This along with the 15. Pionier-Kompanie formed the IV. Fallschirmschützen-Battalion this event isnt even covered in the main article.
 * I have stated the facts as provided by the books cited. FallschirmPanzerkorps Hermann Göring was formed from the merger of Luftwaffe Armored Paratroop Division and Fallschirm-Panzergrenadier Division 2 Hermann Göring as cited with four different citations.  Perseus 71  talk 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This FAC article isnt sufficiently consistant with the main articles, that following the link actually brings the reader into a conflict between information, while the other articles arent up at FAC the significant points in this article should have some corellation with the information in the main articles. Gnangarra 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The main articles are mostly B class with very few references. They have not been developed fully just like German Air Fleets in World War II or History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945). If the main article is causing conflict due to underdevelopment, I can move those links to See Also section. Would that help ?  Perseus 71  talk 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Switching to Oppose
 * I feel that there are too many lists in the article, would it be possible to turn some of these lists into paragraphs?
 * In the Gruppe section, you have an uncited paragraph, this needs to be corrected.
 * In the Staffel section you have two uncited paragraphs, this needs to be corrected.
 * In the Schwarm, Rotte and Kette section you have two uncited lines that need to be cited. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing, no feedback from nominator since September 3rd. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.