# Talk:Max Näther

What makes http://wwi-cookup.com/ and Theaerodrome.com WP:RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I inherited http://wwi-cookup.com/ from a prior editor. I backed it up with another cite as can be seen. Should have deleted it at that time. Thanks for the heads up.
The Aerodrome has a bibliography, which by consensus makes a website reliable. We in the WWI aviation history community established that some years ago in a consensus. Also, some of the world's most published and greatest authorities on WWI aviation are behind the site--Greg VanWyngarden, for instance. These are the same historians that we cite when they publish in print. It makes no sense to say they are reliable in print, but not on the internet. Kinda reminiscent of the argument that paper encyclopedias are better than Wikipedia.
Now, off to zap http://wwi-cookup.com/.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Er, paper encyclopedias are often reliable sources according to WP:RS; whereas, Wikipedia is never considered a reliable source (WP:CIRCULAR). I will post this to WP:RSN for feedback from uninvolved editors. (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I realize that, in my haste, I have been ambiguous. I am not plumping for WP as a self-referential source. And I realize that WP has to legally cover its butt by insisting that, overall, changes will happen. However, the concept that only print sources are grist for an internet encyclopedia goes against the flow of events. MSM is fading as Internet news picks up. Information storage is rising into the Cloud. WP is pretty unchanging except for growth; not much deletion going on.
The Aerodrome website has a bibliography page buried deep within. Pain in the tail to find. Some biography pages in the site cite the source(s) at the foot--where the historians cite the very books I use when I can find them.
Aerodrome forum as source is forbidden, of course.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Max Näther/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 05:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I will be reviewing this. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


### Early life and army service
"Max Näther was born 24 August 1899 in Tepliwoda, Silesia" → "Max Näther was born on 24 August 1899 in Tepliwoda, Silesia"
It's good either way, but I gave you your 'on'.
"Max Näther joined the German army in 1914" → "Näther joined the German army in 1914"
'He' for 'Max Nather'.
"He won both the Second and First Class Iron Crosses during this time, the latter on 1 February 1916." → "He won both the Second and First Class Iron Crosses during this time, with the latter on 1 February 1916."
Leave as is. More concise.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


### Ariel service
Link — "Brunswick", "ace"
Too many Brunswicks to disambiguate.
How could I have missed linking 'ace'?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
"Valenciennes" — Should not be in italics.
Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
"July saw him vanquish a Sopwith Dolphin and three more Spad XIIIs." — It isn't written with a formal tone and needs to be rephrased. Perhaps → "In July, he shot down a Sopwith Dolphin and three more Spad XIIIs"
Delete as inconsequential.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
"Näther spent from 28 July to 21 August on leave" → "Näther was on a leave from 28 July to 21 August"
Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
"Especially notable was 26 September, when he downed a Spad XIII in the morning and a balloon and another Spad XIII in mid-afternoon" → "His performance on 26 September was considered to be significant when he downed a Spad XIII in the morning and a balloon and another Spad XIII in mid-afternoon"
Formalized and cleaned up.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
"Näther was shot down in flames by Jacques Swaab" → "Näther was shot down by Jacques Swaab"
What's the problem with the original?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Georgejdorner, "in flames" is a poetic expression and just "shot down" conveys the same message. — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
It was an era when pilots sat atop tin gas tanks while other men shot at them with incendiary bullets. Inevitably, some people fell flaming from the skies. Nothing poetic about that. The phrase is often found in texts describing air battles.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I did not suggest that the event was poetic, but that the terminology "in flames" is. 1836 U.S. Patent Office fire could be described as "the building going down in flames" but that is not a bland, formal and neutral description of the event—bland, formal and neutral is how encyclopedias are written. Non-fiction books, even highly rated ones use that kind of terms because they are their accounts of what happened, instead of plain historical reporting of facts. I have been unable to find an instance on Wikipedia where "in flames" was used in a similar context and the article was of good or featured quality. I could be mistaken and if you can find precedence of its use in a number of good and featured quality articles, it would be all right. It is the same reason why Wikipedia discourages using "passed away" to describe someone's death, and suggest the plain "died" instead. — The Most Comfortable Chair 15:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not plumping for either the act or description being poetic; I believe my description above was pretty brutal. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. I have rewritten the entry to eliminate the phrase "in flames". However, Roth's airplane was on fire during this fight.
I would argue that the airplane being on fire is self-evident from it being "shot down". I wouldn't insist on this unless I believed it made a significant enough difference, which in my understanding it did because of the length of the article and importance of the event. I would like to apologize if I came off as a bit brusque at any point. — The Most Comfortable Chair 07:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
"Coincidentally, although he had become eligible with his 20th and 21st victories on 10 October, he was nominated for the Pour le Mérite also on the 29th; however, his was one of several nominations that was not approved because the war's end brought on chaos." — I am having some trouble understanding what this means. I would suggest a copyedit but I am a little confused; does it say that he was eligible for the award earlier but was nominated late — which happened because the war was coming to a chaotic end? If I get it right, you could write it as → "Although he become eligible for the Pour le Mérite with his 20th and 21st victories on 10 October, he was nominated on the 29 October; however, his was one of several nominations that were not approved because the war was coming to an end, ensuing chaos."
This can be a tough situation to explain. A Blue Max could only be awarded after the Hohenzollern; quickly scoring aces ran into "traffic jams" with their awards. Toward war's end, some aces eligible for the Blue Max weren't nominated. Some were, but weren't approved. A couple became belatedly eligible when their 20th victory was confirmed only after the Armistice. And at least one neglected ace unilaterally claimed his Blue Max.
At any rate, let's hope this rewrite is clear enough.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


### Postwar service and death
Link — "Kolmar".
Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


### Notes
Reference 1 and 4 — Use "The Aerodrome" instead of "Theaerodrome.com".
Reference 7 — Should be → "Balloon Busters". The Aerodrome. Retrieved 28 September 2020.
Both done.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
That should be all. I have copyedit the prose a bit as well and it should pass. Thank you and my apologies for the delay. — The Most Comfortable Chair 18:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed your concerns. Your suggestions have been very helpful. Thank you for the review.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


### Final
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
The article covers as many details as it can about one of the more interesting figures of World War I, and it does so quite well. It is written nicely, has a good flow, and meets the criteria. Thank you for your work and dedication.  — The Most Comfortable Chair 07:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)