Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rudolf Frank


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Rudolf Frank

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review to see if it meets the criteria. The article follows the layout of similar articles gone to A-class. Unfortunately it is rather thin on his personal life so the reviewers may feel that the article is not quite up to A-class standards. I am thankful for any constructive feedback. I hope you enjoy the read. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Very interesting article, and nicely done, as usual. Yes, it is thin on his personal life, but he's notable for things beyond that. And he was so young!
 * I've made some minor tweaks throughout: verbs, a few spelling glitches (usually betwixt between American and British English) and smoothed out a few phrases. Feel free to revert or discuss.
 * I did not do a photo check, but leaving that to someone who is a master of those things.
 * I thought article met A class review requirements. auntieruth (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 Comments Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * c/e'd a few minor things, feel free to revert.
 * suggest deleting Note 1, which disrupts the flow of the lead, and adding a "See also" section
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * suggest Bomber Command of the Royal Air Force (RAF)
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

more to come
 * waiting, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Early life and career
 * The use of Mittlere Reife without providing a translation is problematic, a reader has to follow the link to even get an idea what we are talking about, I suggest inserting (school leaving certificate) after the link.
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 2nd squadron and 1st squadron further down appear to be a proper title of a unit, suggest 2nd Squadron etc
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * drop "the" from at the Nachtjagdschule 1
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

World War II
 * for consistency with use of German ranks, private should be Gefreiter
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Night fighter pilot
 * "Mk V" doesn't need scare quotes
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * do we know when he qualified on the Do217J night fighter?
 * Not mentioned by Schumann, do you know? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * it is probably worth pointing out that the Do217J was a night fighter variant of the Do217 bomber
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * suggest flew further missions in
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * suggest Frank avoided an official reprimand
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Frank and his crew? Wasn't it just Frank and Schierholz? If so, I'd say that.
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * one of the instances of "night fighter" is hyphenated, I don't see the need
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * suggest crew were again, or Frank and Schierholz
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * suggest 14th victory overall
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * suggest The His unit
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * this might sound a little better his aircraft was hit in the right engine by enemy fire
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * no idea what model the British intruder was?
 * I checked again, not mentioned in my reference MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross
 * suggest Frank managed to bring the aircraft down at Gießen.
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * do we know when he got married?
 * Unfortunately I don't, my sources only show his wedding picture without a date. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * shot down in the early morning at 02:11 is tautological, suggest shot down at 02:11
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Death and posthumous honors
 * suggest Debris from the Lancaster
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Geschwaderkommodore Oberstleutnant Lent should just be Lent per WP:SURNAME
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * suggest moving on 27 April to the beginning of the sentence
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Generalleutnant Schmid, commander of the I. Jagdkorps should just be Schmid per WP:SURNAME
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * suggest Frank was also posthumously promoted to Leutnant
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So, largely prose-related comments, the article is in great shape. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the image licensing seems fine to me.
 * all images have alt text
 * all toolchecks are ok
 * no overlinking

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * " a secondary school built on the mid-level Realschule": I don't know what that means.
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments: just a couple of quick comments from me at this stage:
 * "1st night fighter school" --> I think this should be captialised as "1st Night Fighter School" as it would appear to be a proper noun (for instance compare it to "3rd Night Fighter Wing");
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * same as above for "1st destroyer school" and "1st supplemental training squadron";
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * in the notes section is it necessary for "List of German World War II night fighter aces" to be presented in italics? It seems inconsistent with other links. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * done, thanks for the review MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Comment  -- Sorry it's taken me so long to show up, MB... For the benefit of other reviewers, I copyedited, commented upon, and passed the article at GAN. The only caveat I raised there for higher-level assessments was the website references Aircrew Remembered, Royal Air Force Commands, and Airwar Over Denmark. Not having come across them before, they look to me like the work of quite serious enthusiasts, and I would've thought we could do better than these at ACR (or FAC). Alternatively, perhaps the info cited to these sources is not so vital that it couldn't be dropped if no other sources can be found. So I can't see myself supporting for A-Class at the moment, but happy to discuss... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion about this reference other than this was the only source I found whichs links these claim to an explicit aircraft. Regarding Aircrew Remembered you find a reference to the book, which I don't have access to, in the further reading section of the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, just to clarify, are you opposing here? Otherwise, I'm going to put it up for closure on the basis of a consensus to promote. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks very much for checking, PM. Yeah, I guess I need to declare an oppose here for now. Sorry to be a hard-arse on this but I'm yet to be convinced that we should be treating these particular websites as having the same reliability as the book sources. Having examined each instance in which the websites are used, it seems to me that they are just providing a little extra detail on the aircraft shot down, but not on the fact of the shootdowns themselves from Frank's perspective. IOW, as far as I can see we could remove the sources and any extra info they provide without hurting the key facts in the article, and be left with a more robust set of references in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Acknowledge. I understand Ian's position here. However I am going to leave the article as is. When the review period expires I suggest to not promoting the article. I believe leaving the information in is in better interest of our readers, even if it means that the article does not get promoted. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * May I suggest a compromise? How about putting the material about which Ian has a question into a note?  After all, just because a group that put out the source material are "enthusiasts" doesn't mean they are wrong.  Most of us aren't trained military historians, right, but we can still get our facts right?  Just a thought.  I found this a very interesting article, actually, and was not concerned about that particular reference.  auntieruth (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no concerns with the use of those websites in this case, they comprise additional information about the callsign/number of the aircraft involved, but that is pretty minor detail added to that reliably sourced information from Schumann, I don't think they represent material likely to be challenged. With respect to Ian's oppose, the ACR requirement is consensus for promotion, not whether there are any opposes. Given we have three supports, and Ian's oppose is very specific, perhaps if all three supports reconsider the contentious websites and still believe it meets the A-class criteria, we have a consensus to promote anyway? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks for commenting, Ruth. Moving the web-sourced info to footnotes might be help a bit but doesn’t really allay my concerns about maintaining high referencing standards at ACR (and FAC, if that’s the next destination after this). Of course enthusiastic amateurs can get their facts right. The thing is that here on WP, we enthusiastic amateurs are required to cite those facts to reliable sources, and the people who produce these sites are not. I’d be interested in getting Nikkimaria here for a dedicated source review given her experience at it here and at FAC. Her thoughts might well help us achieve consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The detail from RAFCommands appears to be supported by this source, which could be used instead - I wouldn't support continuing to use the current source in that case. The Flensted site generally has previously been cited by more reliable source (eg), so I would consider that one to be an allowable SPS. The Aircrew Remembered site I'm on the fence about: one author, Wingham, is a published author on this topic, but then we're citing him regarding his own work, which isn't generally a good practice; the other author, Mole, I can't find much about. Do we have any more details on him? In any event, I would definitely prefer to see a truly independent source to cite the sentence on the Wingham book. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for looking into this. I cited what I found in Chorley's books (online search). I left the former reference in for now. I was unable to verify two aircraft details in Chorley's online books. Does someone have access to the printed books? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What do the reviewers think of this source, or this one, or this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the second one looks like it might be ok, I don't know much about Pen and Sword publishers. The first one just seems like a personal blog, the link to the last one is not working for me at present. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By popular demand, I removed the links MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * can you reconsider your oppose? If you are happy, I think we can go ahead and promote. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good, tks very much MB and everyone else. I just tweaked text a tiny bit following changes since I last read it, supporting now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 