Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oswald Boelcke/archive2

Oswald Boelcke

 * Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

This article is about one of the world's first flying aces who was the first fighter tactician in history, a progenitor of the German Air Force, and the world's leading fighter ace at the time of his accidental death in 1916. Even more importantly, he mentored the Red Baron and dozens of other aces who became fighter squadron leaders in the German Air Force.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Ian
Recusing coord duties to review, as usual I'll copyedit as I go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've completed my first pass so see what you think -- other points:
 * He got along well in school with both his fellow students and the teachers; his frank and friendly demeanor, blond hair, and intense blue eyes made him memorable. One source says Oswald Boelcke was studious as well as athletic, excelling at mathematics and physics. -- not saying this isn't supported by the sources (though in any case I think a 1942 book has to be treated with extreme caution) but it sounds a bit hagiographic and I don't think is really necessary as his friendly manner is mentioned in the Legacy section.
 * I used the 1942 source for physical description; I don't think his eye and hair color will change in subsequent sources. Head (2016) prints about a page raving about the schoolboy, including an over-the-top quote from Boelcke's old schoolmaster; I shrank it to two sentences. If anything, Boelcke got short-changed.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote in the Legacy section describes his professional manner as a grown man, and has no bearing on his youth.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As the German single-seat pilots began waging war in the third dimension, they had no tactical knowledge for reference. -- "in the third dimension" sounds a bit esoteric, what exactly is meant?
 * People had never before shot at one another in the third dimension, and the first fighter pilots had no idea how to go about it yet.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1915 -- this is very interesting but I wonder if it's not reading a bit like a history of early air combat rather than a bio of Boelcke with all the detail on the chap's contemporaries. Context is important of course but it can lead to over-detailing.  Not saying take a cleaver to it, let's see what other reviewers think -- for now I'll generally copyedit what's there but refrain from removing entire statements, instead bringing those up here.
 * Excellent point. I am going to cut the failed French synchronisers. I will also tie Boelcke into this pioneering era earlier on. But first, off to some research. I need a couple of days.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've whacked out some perfectly good but misplaced text. Rewrote "Advent of synchronized guns". I intend to do likewise to "Early fighter warfare" tomorrow.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The air race begins -- aside from using the definite article to start a heading being generally frowned upon at MOS, "air race" sounds like Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines rather than a competition among combat flyers...
 * The actual section title is "The ace race begins". As this was the only ace race in progress--indeed, the world's first--I believe it rates the "The".Georgejdorner (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The sun broke through the gloom as the coffin was placed on a gun caisson -- not saying it doesn't reflect the sources but it reads too poetically for an encyclopedia I think.
 * "Clouds" for "gloom", perhaps. The poesy is unintentional, but unregretted. There's no reason for an encyclopedia to be dull.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The train crept away through Magdeburg and Halberstadt to Dessau -- ditto; I'd lose both sentences.
 * This is a careful paraphrase of the source.
 * I know the Legacy paragraph on Nazi appropriation of his name attracted a good deal of discussion in the MilHist A-Class Review but I think it still needs work. I might have to delve further into the sources if possible to suggest improvements though, so this might become a source review as well as one of prose and comprehensiveness.  Stay tuned... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot say I was very pleased with the end result of that.
 * Be advised I have not seen the other editor's source.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is it to date. I need a couple of days for research.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note
This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a review in progress, which has been active as of today.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw and can still see that. This does not detract from my comment. I suggest that you urgently try to both address any of Ian's outstanding queries and find another reviewer or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Gosh, and here I thought that if I reviewed other folks' Class A and FA nominations, they would review mine in turn.
 * They may well do. Have you put a neutrally phrased request for an assessment on the talk pages of all those whose nominations you have reviewed? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have serious reservations about soliciting reviews. Chalk it up to personal ethics.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't be any quicker dealing with Ian than I have been.
 * And I am beginning to believe these A and FA assessments are only for the "in crowd"--and I'm not in.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Another week and no sign of a consensus to promote. I am afraid that I am timing this nomination out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
 * Even though there is a review in progress?Georgejdorner (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)