Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)
At the Last B Class Review, this article failed for lack of referenced information. It also failed for lack of suitable referances. I have added at least 2 clear references. As well as followed the Military History Project's Style Guide. I have made sure all the information required by the template is present and properly cited. I think this article deserves a B now. But before submitting it, I'd like to have a Peer Review so if its not suitable for B, at least I'll know what to work on. So Can I please know what it lacks to get a B ?

Yes I am aware that this article has 7 Bibliographical references of which only 3 are being used. I don't have access to the rest.. :(

Thanks. perseus71 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bedford
Too many "citations needed" tags for B class. Another English-language-source or two wouldn't be a bad idea.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

 * Expand the introduction, a one liner intro is not really acceptable for any article above Stub-class.
 * Is there really a need for Disambiguation here? Could the names of the different units be used instead of the WWI/WWII designation?
 * A lot more references and external links are needed for this to be a good B-class candidate. Have asked the aviation people for help? I'm sure they could suggest places to find info on the group. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies (1)

 * Consider changing the article name. The 1939-45 war is usually referred to hereabouts as either "World War II" or the "Second World War". "World War 2" fits into neither camp.
 * Cut down the huge number of blue links. You don't need to link, for example, "hauptmann" every time it's used: just the first time. The same applies to the other rank titles.
 * You only need to use the "authorlink" section in if the author has a Wikipedia article. It's often neater to dispense with the template altogether, but format and list the same info yourself.

..More later ... -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 12:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Headers: these should not be capitalised (ie Unit Emblem and Color Schemes > "Unit emblem and color schemes")
 * Is this article in US English or UK English? If US, Defence > "Defense"
 * Expand the lead (per the other reviewers)
 * Close copy-edit required. Examples: Modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland > "modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland"; of Germany from the final Allied offensives (missing closing bracket);
 * De-link dates ie 1 January.
 * This note {Note - Eric Mombeek, in "Defenders of the Reich" actually describes it as being a red circle, in volume 2. But then goes on to show it as a black circle in every plate and photograph.) needs to go into a footnote.


 * Incidentally, the scope of my comments goes further than the simple question about B-Class you asked (it now easily meets B-Class). Perhaps you should try to work this up to A-Class? If you need a hand, just ask, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

jackyd101
I agree with all of the above, especially regarding the article's title. However my biggest problem was the standard of prose. Firstly, the prose is very broken up into short sentances and paragraphs which makes it difficult to follow the text. This is worsened by the very heavy use of jargon and the failure to explain clearly early on in the article what exactly the subject is and what it did, partly the result of a very poor lead. I recommend that the lead be expanded to explain clearly what the article covers and the article written in a coherent paragraph structure with limited jargon and that which is used explained clearly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies (2)
In specific response to your requests about A-Class, the following (raised above) seem to be outstanding and need fixing:
 * Outstanding from earlier
 * Another English-language-source or two wouldn't be a bad idea. I see you have added titles but not citing much to them.
 * Cut down the huge number of blue links. You don't need to link, for example, "hauptmann" every time it's used: just the first time. The same applies to the other rank titles.
 * Headers: these should not be capitalised (ie Unit Emblem and Color Schemes > "Unit emblem and color schemes"). A few remain left to do. I've fixed these.
 * Citations can just have the author's surname, year of publication and page number.
 * Page numbers are needed for most of the books cited.
 * Is this article in US English or UK English? If US, Defence > "Defense"
 * Close copy-edit required. Examples: Modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland > "modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland"; of Germany from the final Allied offensives (missing closing bracket);
 * De-link dates ie 1 January.
 * This note {Note - Eric Mombeek, in "Defenders of the Reich" actually describes it as being a red circle, in volume 2. But then goes on to show it as a black circle in every plate and photograph.) needs to go into a footnote.
 * Prose: Very broken up into short sentences and paragraphs which makes it difficult to follow the text.
 * Prose: Very heavy use of jargon and the failure to explain clearly early on in the article what exactly the subject is and what it did,
 * Poor lead: needs to explain clearly what the article covers.
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Refs and sources:
 * 5. ^ a b Weal (1996)
 * Page number?


 * 6. ^ Weal & Laurier, 2001.
 * Missing from book list. Page number?


 * 7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Schuelke (1995).
 * Page number? Chapter? Date of publication? See


 * 8. ^ a b Reimer, 2007/08
 * Page number?
 * Reimer is actually a hobby website in the detailed refs section. I question its validity.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! '') 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 10. ^ a b c d e f Goebel (2001).
 * Page number?


 * 11. ^ Weal (2003).
 * Which book (two for 2003: 2003a or 2003b). Page number?


 * 12. ^ a b c d e Mombeek (2003).
 * Page number?


 * 13. ^ Mombeek, in Defenders of the Reich (Vol. II) describes the emblem as a red circle but photographs depict it as a black circle.
 * Page number?


 * 15. ^ Williamson & Bujeiro (2004).
 * Page number?


 * 16. ^ a b c Weal (1999).
 * Page number?


 * -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 10:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

YellowMonkey
Brought here by Roger.
 * I do not see how Reimer's website is a RS. is he a certified pundit?
 * "II.Gruppe Jagdgeschwader 1" appears to be a website about a computer game and not a military website at all.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! ) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The lack of references in some places and the somewhat informal prose is a worry.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! ) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The short paragraphs need dto be better integrated.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! ) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)