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.
"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.
"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."
"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."
"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).
"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.
"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."
"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."
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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."
"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."
"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).
"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.
"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."
"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."
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.
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.