Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Hans-Joachim Marseille

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hans-Joachim Marseille

I would like to know what this article is missing to qualify for a higher rating than B-Class.MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kirill Lokshin

The article is pretty nice, overall. Some specific points to consider:

• The lead should be expanded to two or three full paragraphs.Y Done
• I'd suggest avoiding footnotes in the middle of sentences where possible. Unless the material is extremely controversial, grouping them at the end of a sentence or paragraph would clean up the flow a bit.
• The images are a bit cluttered; the large plane image, in particular, will run into the previous one on wider resolutions, and is too large in any case.
• The entire "Summary of career" section would look better in table form than as bulleted lists. His absences seem a bit too trivial to me, but I suppose they would be less jarring if in continuous form. You might also consider combining all the material into a single comprehensive timeline; but I'm not entirely convinced whether that would be an improvement, at this point.
• The gray/orange blocks don't really add anything that couldn't be done with a simple table with a single vertical line down the middle, and look a bit garish.Y Done

Higher ratings than B-Class all have associated formal reviews that articles must go through, incidentally; see WP:MHA for more details. Kirill 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the assessors comments are a little harsh on the colour table, it isn't that garish, the contrast is pretty light.

I don't think that the absences from the front are trivial either, these are important considerations in the career of a fighter pilot- especially so in Marseille's case, given the short period in which his kills were scored. The reader can then understand why mention of his actions, for example, in July-August were non-existant.

I agree that the image is a little too big, this I will correct.Dapi89 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, fair enough. I'd still suggest that a table form would serve better for the timelines than the current one, though, regardless of what one chooses to include in the timeline itself. Kirill 14:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the citations covering the nature of Marseille's last mission (see talk page), the citation and note were placed there as the information became disputed (caused by errors in general literature). I trust this is okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapi89 (talk • contribs)