Wikipedia:Peer review/Adlertag (Eagle Day)/archive1

Adlertag (Eagle Day)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested to know if the general content of the article is satisfactory for GA. Aerial battles tend to be difficult to write without seeming to be repetitive. So style, tone and any other technical advice for improving it so it is in good nick when I first go to GA.

Thanks, Dapi89 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang

Willamson Murray's book is a dead link.

No matter, I have a hard copy. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

"Hitler gave the German armed forces (Wehrmacht) a directive (Directive No. 16) which ordered the preparation for the aerial attack and pacification of the United Kingdom in order to prevent it from becoming a base from which the Western Allies could continue the war against the Greater German Reich and German-occupied Europe."
Really long sentence, which can be broken down into shorter, more easily digested sentences.

Duly noted. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Before this could be carried out, Air superiority or air supremacy were required before any further sea or land operation."
"Before the invasion could proceed, the Germans needed to establish control of the air space around the United Kingdom."

Okay. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Luftwaffe was to destroy the RAF in order to prevent it from attacking the invasion fleet or providing protection for the Royal Navy's Home Fleet which might attempt to prevent a landing by sea."
"The Luftwaffe was given the objective to destroy the RAF, depriving the British of any air support that would help them defend against a German invasion by sea."

I think the original is better. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe's commander-in-chief, Reichsmarschall (Empire Marshal) Hermann Göring and the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe (High Command of the Air Force) to prepare the German air arm for the assault."
Is this even needed in the lede?

I think so. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I was midway through the second paragraph, I was getting this impression that it was written in the current style to stuff links in there.

No it was not. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Marred by poor intelligence, planning and communication, the German formations ..."
"Hindered by ...": yes. "Marred by ...": no (unless you are talking of the "German air operation"/Adlertag, at least in my books.

Background

Entire Background can be summarised into one or two paragraphs. The key point for background is to give context to Adlertag. Thus, the conquest of Europe and the status of the Luftwaffe and RAF after those battles can be summed in one paragraph, and the conception of Adlertag in another. I do not think the reader should be expected to read four other articles (mostly about land battles) to gain a modicum of understanding about what is to come for Adlertag.

Note: from this point on, I was disturbed by the level of detail I found, and was just scanning for things that stood out very prominently to me.

Who are the OKL and OKW? All abbreviations (and there are more than those pointed out above) are to be named in full on the first mention (WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations).

They are explained. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence

"In particular, the use of (through interrogation and bugging) prisoners of war enabled German innovations such as the Knickebein blind bombing device to be discovered and counter measures prepared."
The "use of prisoners of war" alone does not sound right ("use of prisoners as cannon fodder", "use of prisoners as menial labour" sound right). "In particular, the use of interrogation and bugging on prisoners of war enabled the British to discover German innovations such as the Knickebein blind bombing device and prepare counter measures against them." is how I would rephrase this sentence.

I think the original is fine. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This inaccurate picture was to mislead the OKL throughout the battle as Schmidt's incorrect assessments started to gain more and more distance from the truth."
This sentence can be misread to imply that Schmidt intended to mislead the OKL; furthermore, the conjunction with the second clause does not really tie the two together for me. "Schmidt's incorrect assessments proved detrimental to the Germans as they prepared for the battle with a false perception of reality."

I disagree. It is clear by "Schmidt's incorrect assessments" that he did not do it on purpose. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C3: Command, control, communication

Since the acronym "C3" is never used anywhere in the article except in this sub-section heading, is it necessary?

Yes. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This was the "Dowding System", after its chief architect, Air Chief Marshal Sir H.C.T. "Stuffy" Dowding, the commander-in-chief of RAF Fighter Command."
There looks to be a missing word.

There is a missing word. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

Without scrutinising the details, I just put as much text of the Battle on my screen and was shocked to see the masses of numbers and aeroplane models. I appreciate military stories but I think if I can be shocked (and made hesitant to reader further), a casual reader (who would likely not remember what type of planes V./LG 1, Ju 88s, and III./KG 55 are) could be scared off.

Don't agree. I've been through this before on Operation Bodenplatte. It is the only way to right it and it is all relevant. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morning

"This fed the Germans' belief the airfield was a Fighter Station."
Why is fighter station capitalised?

In original source I think. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overclaiming

"Another 84 RAF fighters were claimed on the ground."
The Germans took possession of British planes that were on the ground?

It is correct terminology for aerial combat. Claimed means destroyed and context is already clear before hand. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

What is the base map for File:Battle of Britain map.svg? It should be a map with no copyrights (either through expiry of protection or through creation from geographical data, see commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps and satellite images). Furthermore, what sources were used to create the "boundaries, bases and RADAR coverage"?

Overall, I think there is a loss of focus; the article meanders to cover what I consider unnecessary details in relation to an air operation. Details of ground operations should be brief or ignored if they contributed nothing to the conception and conduct of Adlertag. This article needs serious consideration on pruning the current content: there is fairly substantial content about Adlertag, but much has been obfuscated with unnecessary details. I also think a copy-edit (perhaps EyeSerene might be able to help if asked). Those (focus and prose) are the biggest obstacles to higher quality assessments in my opinion. Jappalang (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Where I'm in agreement I have left no comment at all.

That maybe correct for background and build up, but is certainly not true for the remaining sections. I don't agree with over detail re: the battle section. It would be silly to attempt to write a section that meanders around generalisations without pointing to groups that took part and their losses.

I suspected prose would be an issue and this article will go through several versions before it is ready. I am more concerned about quality content.

Thanks for taking time out to have a look. Dapi89 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]