Talk:History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Yak-9

Under the "Allied undertakings to benefit from German know-how" section it mentions that the Yak-9 was built with German know how and was indeed a virtual copy of the P.011-45, but the link it provides clearly shows the Yak to be a piston engine plane developed long before the end of the war.

--Agent of Fortune 09:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

Terrible and egregious POV, particularly in the first few paragraphs. The comments below give a flavour of what I'm talking about. Most of the faulty information (which I realise is ported from the Luftwaffe page) was contributed by User:Trekphiler some months ago (see this edit summary). Clearly, the article is not encyclopaedic the way it is now written. I would (and will) change it myself if necessary but I bet there are a whole bunch of wikipedians who know much more about this than I do and can do the article justice. Sad to see this text (on Luftwaffe) pointed at from the main page yesterday- not a good advert for our encyclopaedia at all. Examples include: Faulty German intelligence and poor leadership did as much to save Fighter Command as Dowding's careful husbanding of his precious pilots...The entry of the United States into the conflict in December 1941 drew American bomber forces into the same futile project....it produced a calamity with overtones of Haig in World War I. Futile project? Overtones of Haig? Come on. Whether true or not, the POV is clear and these statements are not properly verified. Badgerpatrol 01:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree - this article as it stands is very problematic. In a first attempt to guide improvements, I have broken it down in sections. I will get back to it over time. Andreas 10:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this article can now live without a POV. Andreas 18:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Development and Spanish Civil War

I would suggest that the article should be extended to cover the period to 1935, including Luftwaffe participation in the Spanish Civil War. Andreas 10:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have done that. Andreas 18:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I think the pictures in this article aren't the best possible. Now there are pictures of Ju-287, me-262 and He-219, all of which were mere curiosities, and not a single picture of Me-109 or Focke-Wulf 190, which were the most important German planes in the war. Latre 18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. If you have the time to dig some Me-109 picture up, that would be great. Best Andreas (who can't sign on this funny foreign keyboard)

Also, why isn't there a single picture of Hermann Goering? Surely the chief of the Luftwaffe during WW2 deserves to have his picture somewhere in the article? HuronKing, October 25th 2006

i am not entirely convinced that the battle of Britain was the begining of the end for the Luftwaffe. Whilst it's true that they lost many experienced aircrew in what turned out to be a futile battle of attrition, they were again to repeat thier spectacular air successes they had experienced during Poland and France in Russia. Also what about the defense of their homeland. American bombers received such a mauling from german fighters (once they realised how to attack them properly) that daylight operations over Germany were almost cancelled until the arrival of long range allied fighters. one of the main problems of the luftwaffe apart from having the wrong man in control (Goering and Udet) was a paradox to their initial success. Whilst the allies concentrated on making many aircraft designed for teh same role Spitfire, hurricane etc the Germans simply relied on one or two types eg fw190 or me109. whilst many of the multitude of allied aircraft eventually bore fruit eg mosquito, the Germans found their aircarft could only be upgraded to a limited degree the me109 being a classic case in point whilst still flying at the end of the war it was bascically obselete. The other problem was of course production only matching that of the allies in 1944 ironically as the allies concentrated their war effort on aircraft production.Mr phils 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Luftwaffe Training material

This image shows a caricature of a jew in a Luftwaffe training document. This should go towards creation of a subsection on the nazi focus of the luftwaffe, some details of which I left mention of over @ Talk:Luftwaffe#Historical Revisionism. Dee Mac Con Uladh 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

81.152.120.67 12:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)== Changes ==

Changes

When I first saw this article I was shocked at the poor content, lack of depth and factual information which was particularly annoying for us Luftwaffe enthusiasts. I have added quite a bit of information and extra sources. But this page is in dire need of images of standard aircraft of the time. I have tried but my computer skills are not so good, it was a pitty I had a great picture of a Dornier Do17P 'Condor Legion' for the Spanish Civil War section. 81.152.120.67 12:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA 2007-05-25

• Please read WP:WIAGA.
• There's no GAC template on the Talk page. This is not one of th reasons why the article failed, but for future nominations, please read the instructions on WP:GAC.
• Images: The image use is appropriate. However, please check the licensing for every image in the article and correct them as needed. The first several I checked had nontrivial problems: Image:Fallschirmjäger.jpg and Image:Ju 87D Stukas over Russia.jpg carried deprecated licensing statements, while the Fair Use licensing on Image:109020.jpg, Image:Goring-hermann.jpg, and Image:Me262 bw 01.jpg carried an explicit notice warning against the licensing tag employed. I did not check the remaining images.
• Notes and References:

1. The notes are not in sequence. The first note link, named "bf110", is nonfunctional since it does not match a ref link. There are two "spain" ref links. There is a ref link, #4 "defeat", which has no corresponding note.
2. Some of the longer notes (such as 6 and 7) look suspiciously like lengthy direct quotes from a text (?). If so, then they are improperly referenced.
3. The references in the "Sources and further reading" are incorrectly formatted... often no publisher, no place of publication, no year of publication, etc. Look at WP:CITE#HOW to get more information about the policies of citation and reference in Wikipedia articles. This is of particular importance.
4. The format is inconsistent. Why is there a single footnote-style reference in the "References" section, and all other sources are in the "Sources and further reading" section?
5. The referencing is quite sparse for such a lengthy article. As a bare minimum, include one cite per paragraph, to assure the information is verifiable.

• Well written:
• Spelling, Göring or Goring?
• The text needs nontrivial copy editing. Strongly suggest submitting the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. For example:

• "Although it can be argued that Hitler ultimately was responsible, fearing the Panzer Divisions' losses would deplete them ahead of the southward drive into France and recalling how in 1914 the waterways in North Eastern France had bogged down the German Northern flank he prevented the push which would have netted him the entire Allied Land Force on the continent."
• "The greatest failure in terms of technological development was to not develop a long-range bomber... "
• "It was a close run battle, A J P Taylor and Air Marshal Sir Robert Saundby agree in their works A History of the Second World War (1974) that by mid August 1940 with the Luftwaffe hammering RAF airfields and Communications in South East England the situation had become desperate."
• The Heinkel He 219 Uhu (Owl) was considered one of the best night fighters in the Luftwaffe's inventory, yet thankfully for the Allies, not enough of them were built to stem the tide of bombers, which became effective at using strips of aluminium foil called "Window" (American name, chaff; German, Düppel) to jam the radar signals"

• POV: The sentence above is a good example of a persistent tendency for the article to editorialize without providing a reliable source to substantiate its claims.
• USAF historical monographs: What is this section at the end? See WP:MOS.
• Ling.Nut 03:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm in the process of expanding and changing this article. I have cleared up most of the above, added the needed citations and deleted the POV ish style language. I will keep an eye on it. I think the last section should be under further reading so i will create a section for it. I will also correct the ref's and notes.Dapi89 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

History of the Luftwaffe During World War II

I have a huge backlog of things I'm supposed to be doing. Maybe I'll fix your Biblio section sometime in the next two or three weeks... sorry I can't do more... --Ling.Nut 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I took a stab at cleaning up some of the references. Good luck with the article! Ling.Nut 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking good.. you need to add new references to the list in alphabetical order, by author's last name.. so you need to move the two new ones.. Good work! Ling.Nut

Luftwaffe in the east

I'm curently expanding this section. Hopefully I'll have completed it within the next few days to cover 1942 onwardsDapi89 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

GA tips

1. Footnotes go after punctuation, not before.
2. Expand the lead to 3-4 paras. The lead should summarize each major section of the article and a long article such as this needs more than one para.Rlevse 22:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1- Done (I could only see one example )

2- Done - I think.Dapi89 19:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes still need to be fixed, they need to go right after the punctuation with no space in between. Some examples include "This same aircraft was to score the first aerial victory of the war when Kettenfuhrer Leutnant Frank Neubert shot down a Polish PZL P.11c fighter aircraft piloted by Captain Mieczysław Medwecki[9]." and "The Allied air campaign was not successful in knocking Germany out of the war by itself, but it contributed significantly to the German defeat, by forcing the Germans to focus valuable resources on the battle over Germany, which were then missed on other fronts. [1]" I also saw one "citation needed" tag. Address that before somebody reviews the article. --Nehrams2020 17:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nehrams is correct. YOu also have entire sections without footnoes, not good. You image in the intro is not displaying.Rlevse 11:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

I'm not going to grant this article GA status, and I hope that doesn't seem churlish given the level of effort that seems to have gone into it. The main criteria I can see that it fails on are being well written and being too broad in coverage (doesn't stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details). I will explain these points in more detail below:

• Section numbering is off - "early war" is a subheading of "pre-war" at the moment, which is obviously wrong.
• Overly broad, given title, covers too much pre-war development and training. Its all great content but it doesn't belong in an article that from its title is purely about the luftwaffe's WWII role. FInd another article - Development of the Luftwaffe or Luftwaffe between the wars? A partner article would be a suitable branch for a lot of this earlier material. The same occurs at the end of the article with sections such as "USSR post-war use of German aeronautical expertise" being outside the article's remit. Also, sections such as "Organisation and chain of command" could surely be built into the overall narrative or left out entirely. There is basically a lot of included material that doesn't really belong in the article and contributes to its length.
• For such a large article on such a popular topic there are surprisingly few sources - I think a greater variety of sources and a higher density of citations throughout the article would benefit it greatly.
• Given the length of the footnote list, you should consider making this dual-column
• Are there separate daughter articles on sections such as "Battle of the Atlantic"? If so, these should be linked to with a "main article" link directly under each section's header
• There is no "analysis" section at the end as I would expect. What are the analyses on their overall performance and effectiveness? I think there should be some analysis at the end to follow the historical narrative of their actions.
• On an article covering 6 years of operations, to have over a screen's worth of text on France and the Low Countries between 10 May - 25 June 1940 seems escessive, especially given that daughter articles specialising on this period are listed and linked to. This is something that seems to affec the whole article - an inability to edit down the article to the necessary facts and move excessive detail to daughter articles. It might be helful to see if you have given the same level of detail to every operation mentioned and see if not what the article would be like if you had gone into this level of detail everywhere - ie in some sections you go into how many aircraft individual aircraft show down on individual days. Clearly this is far too much detail for an article summarising a 6year period of warfare.
• Needs a good copyedit to remove grammar such as "screaming siren's" - there is no apostrophe in a plural.

Essentially, there is too much content, and the content is too sloppy - the whole article needs to be "tightened" up - I would say this needs to be a two stage process - identify content that can be removed - both entire sections that don't fit within the article scope and also where too much detail is provided within a given section where the section itself is relevant. (this content could be moved to daughter articles rather than being lost entirely) Secondly, I would then advise a really good copyedit. This is not the fault of the primary author, who has done sterling work on this article - it is simply a necessity that whoever you are somebody else copyedits your work to catch grammatical errors, fix ambiguity of prose etc etc. Trim it done, tidy it up and I would say it will be GA on its way to FA. Tighten, tighten, tighten! :-) Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Dissapointed to say the least. The spelling as regard to sirens I didnt put in. I don't agree with this article having too much detail. The name of the article suggests there should be heavy detail about its combat operations, and I dont think that 83 citations (mostly from me) is that bad, even for an article this long. It had been neglected and contained much POV when I started the massive revamp a couple of months ago - in short it was a mess. I disagree with "content being too sloppy". It is well ordered and described in considerable detail the contribution to the campaigns. The french and Western Campaign is just justifiably lengthy - it was one of the most important operations during the war. Overall simply skipping the detail and producing in a simplistic article won't give readers much. Really disappointed.Dapi89 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bzuk.

I was hoping you would have a look at the above article. I have undergone a massive editorial edit over the past few months. It seems to have failed a GA rating because it has "too much detail" in it! Could you have a look and tell me what you think? RegardsDapi89 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on a cursory read of the article, I would say that the following main points should be considered:

Length: the amount of detail is sufficient for an encyclopedic article but adding or expanding the article will lead to a call to create separate "sub-articles." Tone: A number of instances of editorializing are noted without adequate citations to corroborate the statement. A general rule for a GA candidate is to have a minimum of one citation per paragraph and more if there are contentious areas to consider. I counted eight "redlinks" which are not usually a problem but indicates that the Wiki links are not always as strong as they could be. Style: A divergence in writing styles is not as noticeable given that there are many authors/editors at work here, but an experienced editor can make a difference in at least establishing a consistent style, for example using an active "voice" throughout. The use of paragraphing is not consistent and the excessive number of "spellos" and "typos" jumped out at me. Notes/References Style guide usage: I am not a fan of the Harvard template used in the article and if I was rewriting it, I would ditch the present templates and "scratch" cite/reference the entire article. The repeat note from a single source is also apparent and should be incorporated in the usual Wiki note wherein the repeated citations are grouped together. Although there is a "Notes" section, this is not found in the style guides that Wikipedia advocates (although anything goes here as long as the main editing is consistent and follows a sensible pattern). There are minor variations noticed in the references that can be cleaned up but that is only a minor issue. The number of references seem somewhat limited in that there should be a wealth of reference material available in both generalized and specialized works. An inconsistency in coverage is also noted in that some of the sections established are overly long while others are much too short. Graphic "look": the use of photographs is effective but a change to the standard "thumb" size may have to be made if ten or more photographs are used. FWIW Bzuk 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC).