Talk:Rudolf Berthold/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 03:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• No DABs, external links OK
• Regarding your photos of the Albatros D. III and the Siemens-Schukert D. III, it's very hard to claim a license of life +70 years when the photographer isn't actually identified. You'll need to find other examples with better licensing.
• Can you add a photo of the Fokker D. VII? Or perhaps photos of the aircraft flown by his victims? The bottom half of the article is pretty sparse on images.
• The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article; there's an awful amount of detail there.
• Not sure we need so much detail on his early life. Time of birth and his early schooling seem more than we need. I'd suggest summarizing the latter. Similarly, his license # isn't really necessary.
• Once you've mentioned a year, it's generally not necessary to mention it again unless a lot of words have passed.
• More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

---

• • Photo of Albatros D.II removed. No other photo available. I was not aware that there are photos in Commons we cannot use.
  • Subbed in photo of Siemens-Schuckert D.III where photographer is known. Hope this is proper.
    • Yes, that has a good license.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not averse to adding more photos, once I understand the parameters of licensing. However, I see no point in supplying photos, just to have you reject them.
    • Learning about the proper licensing of images is a pain in the ass as there are tons of images that are loaded onto Commons without good licensing. But try this guide to licensing [1] I'll tell you what, send me links to images that you'd like to use, and I'll review them before you go to the trouble of adding them to the article.
  • I purposely withheld or restricted several classes of details from the lede. Unit designations. Duty stations. Numerous aerial victories. Instead, I concentrated on rendering detailed information that would illustrate the importance of his role in the war. I should hate to weaken that. I realize the lede is a tad long, but Berthold had a busy career.
    • Very true, but there's still an awful amount of "meat" there when you should really be giving teasers with the real substance in the main body. For example, in my own article ledes I rarely give specific dates, generally just the year, with occasional months. To give you an idea of what I'm thinking, here's my take on the second paragraph of your lede:

• • • "Berthold joined the German Imperial Army in 1909 and paid for his own flying lessons before getting his license four years later. He was one of the pioneer aviators of World War I, flying crucial reconnaissance missions during the invasion of France in 1914. He commanded one of the first dedicated fighter units in 1916, scoring five victories before suffering severe injuries in a crash that kept him hospitalized for months. Berthold prematurely returned to duty to successively command two of Germany's original fighter squadrons. Before he was wounded again in 1917, he had shot down a dozen aircraft and won Germany's greatest honor, the Pour le Merite. Later that year, he once again bolted from medical care to return to the front."

• • • I think that this conveys most everything that you were trying to get across in a more generalized form.
      • Readers come to encyclopedias for facts, not just writer's observations. Your gloss fails to mention such insignificant details as his recon flight sparking the Battle of Aisne, and his receipt of the second Iron Cross of the entire war. And that's just 1914.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
        • That's the point, the lede is a summary and an introduction to the rest of the article. Precise details are supposed to be glossed over and saved for the main body. To see what I mean, you might want to take a look at other GA-quality ace articles and see how they balanced detail in the lede vs in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The basis of Berthold's patriotism was his schooling. I think it shows how he grew to manly estate. I want to show how he aimed at a military career from an early age.
    • That's fine, but you don't really establish any connection between the schooling and his career desires. You just list the schools and then his pronouncement comes out of nowhere, so I'd dump the schools and just use the quote.
      • To point out what you overlooked, I resort to the vanity of quoting myself:
      • "By the time he had completed his studies there at age 14, he had adopted a personal motto from Horace: "It is sweet and fitting to die for one's Fatherland.""
      • And for his next school, chosen, as he said: "...to better fit himself for a military career."
      • And, surprise, surprise, he ended up in the military after he graduated.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
        • True enough, but there's no info on why he decides on such a thing. Merely saying that he decided on a military career while at a certain school says nothing about why he made such a decision. Was it a teacher, some patriot who came into his life around that time, who? Or maybe something he decided entirely on his own. The article simply doesn't tell us enough about why, regardless of the schooling unless there's something out there about that particular school producing an abnormally high # of officers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
          • You are correct in your surmise that the sources contain no information on who or what influenced him to a military career. There is no mention in the article of the number of officers graduating from these schools. It seems Berthold picked his schools from an early age, with the aim of joining the military. Can you point me to a source that says otherwise? And just why is he supposed to follow your scenario?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
            • <baffled>What scenario? I never postulated a scenario.</baffled> You're the expert here as we both know; I'm just the editor trying to ensure that important details are emphasized, unimportant ones are deleted, and that the whole thing ties together in a coherent and cogent manner. To this end I think that you should drop everything about his schooling, as it's unnecessary detail, until he makes his decision and then run with the bit that says he chose his later schools to aid his military career.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • His pilot's badge number can be an aid to future research by editors to come.
    • True, but that's not really what we're here for. Future researchers can get it from the source that you cited. If it was under 100, I'd think that it was significant on its own, but as is...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Okay. For some reason, these license numbers are a pet factoid of aviation historians. Nevertheless, I'll delete it.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't deal much with early aviators, but I have seen it a bit in what I've read. I regard it as the same sort of thing as the German obsession with the number of the Knight's Cross that somebody received.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the heads up about the repetition of the year. I plan to copy-edit that in a bit.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Continuing on

• Bristol types link to the Bristol Aircraft Company if you can't pin down the exact models flown.
  • As the Bristol types were German copies of the British Bristol, I fail to see the utility of linking a German plane to a British factory.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• It's best to avoid seasons as they differ between hemispheres. So change Summer 1914 to mid-1914.
  • Changed "Summer" to "July".Georgejdorner (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Link to the 3rd Brandenburgers, 2nd Army. Red links are perfectly acceptable.
  • Red link added, in hopes this unit is notable.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Iron Cross Second Class comma after cross and the same for the first class
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• For both classes of the Iron Cross, Berthold received his award second only to Bülow. I think you mean that he was only the 2nd person to receive the Iron Cross during the war, with Bulow being the first, but I'm not sure. Clarify.
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Clarify that Berthold was unable to immediately continue pilot's training in August.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Unrequested edits for improvement

• Added illustration of Iron Cross, Second Class.
• Clarified importance of recon flights in the war's start.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Tidy up info box.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

And one last edit

• Abridged his schooling.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

More continuing on

• I'd strongly recommend folding the last para of the 1914 section into the first one of the 1915 section as the last para is too weak to stand on its own. You can rationalize breaking the strict chronology because the flying season was already over.
  • I prefer to maintain chronology. Putting off the anti-climatic final para down to 1915 simply means it's a misplaced anti-climatic paragraph.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• What's a flight park? Is that a BritEng term?
  • "Flight park" is the literal English translation of Flugpark. Google translate doesn't tell me whether it's a BritEng term. And "flight park" was in the source.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Link fortnight, Officer in charge
  • "Fortnight" linked.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Good thing you noticed OIC. Turns out it doesn't really fit the case. It's gone.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Lots of "1915"s in that section that can be profitably deleted.
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• he had it in action for bombing, as well as a gunship for air defense missions Awkward, maybe rephrase along the lines of "used it for bombing, as well as..."
  • Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• On 2 February, Berthold and Althaus flew an interception at about 15:00 hours. Dodging through spotty cloud coverage and sporadic rain, the duo set upon a pair of Voisin LAs and shot down one apiece. Delete the time, specify what type of aircraft the Voisin LAs were, and combine these sentences.
  • Rewritten. Brought a specific description of the Voisin LA to this end of the link to spare the reader the fatigue of clicking through.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Avoid short paras like the third one in the 1916 section. I'd combine it with the preceding one. More later.
  • Para two relates a series of actions that resulted in a medal. Para does the same, although the sources did not afford as much detail as in para two. Jamming them together simply because you have a prejudice against short paras diminishes clarity while making for a disjointed reading experience.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Outside of dialog, short paras generally cause choppiness which inhibits the easy flow of the reading experience. And that's what your insistence here and above is doing. You're not technically wrong, as you well know, in not combining paragraphs that are not exactly about the same thing, but share a similar theme, but I believe that you're not doing the reader any favors either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Get rid of the serial number of the Pfalz E.IV that he crashed
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Link narcotic
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• On 24 August 1916, Berthold had to be helped into his fighter, but he flew. He scored his sixth victory. Combine these.
  • Rewritten. Boy, you really dislike those short change-of-pace sentences/paras, don't you? I prefer to keep the reader awake and engaged, myself.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • You call it keeping him awake, I call it jarring.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• More redundant years.
  • Trimmed. Kept one reference in November as a reminder to the engaged reader that it is indeed still 1917.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Italicize Jagdstaffel 14 on first use and delete redundant link in the next para
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Die Fliegertruppen reorganized into the Luftstreitkräfte (German Air Force) on 8 October. This doesn't really fit into the paragraph nor am I sure that it's relevant to the article.
  • Jasta 14 was formed as part of the reorganization. When I checked the source, I realized that this fact was implicit in the source, but not explicit. Overboard it goes.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Fokker E.IIIs, a Halberstadt D.II, and seven Fokker D.IIs Tell the reader that all of those aircraft were fighters. And link the E.III
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Where was Jagdstaffel 14 when it was forming?
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Provide conversion of 200 km into Imperial units.
  • Why Imperial units when the article is written in American usage?

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• • • Because Americans are innumerate in metric. Really, any measurement should be presented in both Imperial and metric units.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I am one of the aforesaid Yankees. I am used to measuring in United States customary units and leaving the Imperial system to the Brits.
      • Nevertheless, I am dubbing in mileage.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Link Marchais, France
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delink Marchais, as it is undabbleable (undabbable?)Georgejdorner (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Berthold had Albatros D.III s/n 2182/16 delete the s/n
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Its guns were test-fired. Why is this important enough to be explicitly mentioned.
  • Because being able to shoot is the reason the fighter even exists. The rest of this para concerns the aircraft's appearance. Why do you think a fighter airplane's looks are more important than its purpose?
  • Nevertheless, I have added an explanatory phrase.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I mentioned it because I think of test-firing guns as something so intrinsic to a fighter's function that it goes without saying and isn't worth specifically mentioning. I let the color scheme slide because modellers and the like really geek out over that sort of stuff, although I'm not honestly sure that it's notable in its own right.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• What kind of aircraft is a Caudron R.9?, same with a Spad, and link it as well.
  • The total information available on the Caudron R9 is presented.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • SPAD is linked and dabbed.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Please continue the critique below, as this section has become unwieldy.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Continuing critique

Please continue comments below.

• Regardless of wounding, Berthold was promoted to Hauptmann on 26 October. Don't think that being wounded would affect his promotion one way or another. Regardless, the first phrase is awkward.
  • Awkward phrase deleted.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• hadn't the facilities awkward
  • MASH units do not have the same facilities as trauma centers.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Subbed "lacked" for "hadn't". Contractions are a no-no.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Don't think that Franziska's age is relevant; only that she was his older sister.
  • Deleted age.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• By February, Berthold could get out of bed. Eight days later, in mid-month, Awkward. Number of days seems pointless when the reader lacks a more precise date at the beginning to perform the arithmetic. Consolidate these two sentences to say that he could get out of bed by February and volunteered later that month.
  • Pared awkward phrase.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• aircraft into Jagdstaffel 15 in the wing. Jasta 15 became the wing's Stab Staffel (command squadron). combine these
  • Rewrote to elucidate in the cause of clarity.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• convert 65 km, 800 meters
  • 800 meters in an airplane without an altimeter is near enough 2,500 feet American.
• Georgejdorner (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Retranslated 65 klicks into 40 miles.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Tell the reader that the S-S D.III was a fighter
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Despite high expectations for the craft because of its superior performance, it suffered engine failures at only seven to ten hours usage. The mark was rapidly withdrawn from the wing. Combine these
  • Why?Georgejdorner (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Because it will read better if you get rid of a very strange usage of "mark" with a simple "and" to tie the sentences into one. Or, if you like, a semi-colon.
      • "Mark" is commonly used to denote aircraft or automobiles of a given production run. As in Spitfires or Lincoln Continentals. However, it turns out Oxford Dictionary does not honor that definition. As "mark" seems to be jargon, I subbed in"type".Georgejdorner (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• How on earth was an artillery spotter aircraft able to do its job in the dark?
  • The source does not say, only that he was there on station. At a guess, some of the incoming shells were illumination rounds affording him visibility. Any fires lit by incoming rounds would also help. Also, that pilot must have had "cojones" the size of grapefruits to take off and land in the dark with no instruments. (Personal opinion; original research.)Georgejdorner (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • No kidding! I'm not even sure that parachute flares were invented by 1917, but I suppose it's possible that the aircraft could have navigated by their light. I'd really like to know more about that mission, if it were possible. Since that aircraft would have been one of the few that carried a radio, I suppose he could have called his home airstrip to turn on the car headlights or start the fires to illuminate the landing ground ahead of time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Having witnessed these kind of night flights in both an O-1 Bird Dog and an AC-47...well, it's heart-in-mouth time.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
        • All I can say is better you than me!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Witnessed, I said. No way was I boarding either one. Though the Bird Dog flight was good for a DFC.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete the times in that para.
  • How better to show it was an all-night barrage?Georgejdorner (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • If you say that it began on the night of and by the following morning 200 shells had been fired, I think that they'll get the idea that it lasted a long time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Gee, that's exactly what the times indicate. That it lasted a long time.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
        • You seem unclear on the concept of encyclopedic. You don't want to give every detail, just the important ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• In May 1918, the new Fokker D.VII entered service. Wait a minute. You have Berthold flying one of these when his arm was shattered in October '17. Was this some other Fokker fighter?
  • Good catch. Reference to source reveals he was flying either an Albatros or a Pfalz. I subbed in "aircraft".Georgejdorner (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Link parachute.
  • How did I miss this? Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• called ordered Berthold back into hospitalization. awkward
  • Rewritten for clarity, even if I do not think it awkward.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Done down to post-war--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Critique for postwar section

Do you think the 1917 and 1918 sections are too long? I am toying with the idea of subdividing them. What do you think?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that they're fine as it.

• Don't like the short first para
  • You have previously made your prejudice against short paragraphs abundantly clear.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• airfield in top military order Awkward, not encyclopedic phrasing. Maybe something like "well organized"...?
  • Rewritten.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Why mention Wittman in the second para? His only importance is that he recovers Berthold's body later.
  • Exactly.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• They were trained by late May. I'd fold this into the proceeding sentence.
  • Likewise, your hatred of simple declarative sentences is also abundantly clear.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Link Baltic States
  • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• resting in camp "a" camp
  • What makes you so certain it was a single camp?Georgejdorner (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• before return to Germany Fix this
  • Added "their".16:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• They arrived with 800 men with 300 rifles and a handful of machine guns. Fold this into the proceeding sentence
• Redundant years
• They were scheduled to disarm on 15 March 1920. Merge this into the next sentence with a "but" instead of the "however"
  • I see no reason to make one complicated sentence out of two simple ones.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• doused signals These were literally open flame signals. Perhaps "disabled" would work better.
  • Changed to "darkened".
• 13 workers and three be consistent with spelling out numbers or not when referring to the same type of thing.
• The school grounds were encircled. The Freikorps was besieged. Combine these
• Calling truce "a" truce
• A crowd of onlookers had not been part of the negotiations. They were outraged by the civilian casualties, and they mobbed the Freikorps. Awkward, combine these
• The war cry was sounded. Very dramatic, but not very encyclopedic
• as the mob mauled him Redundant
• Hans Wittmann retrieved Berthold's body Now tell who Wittman was
• Damn awkward translation. Needs to be cited specifically.
• about 15:00 hours How is this important?
• as can be seen where?

I don't believe that this article currently meets criteria 1a, 1b and 3b because you don't use summary style, the lede has far too much specific information and I find your prose awkward. However, since you probably believe me to be biased, I'm going to request a second opinion from an editor experienced with aviator biographies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Will the second opinion change your mind about failing this nom? If not, why waste time? Fail the nom and be done with it. That way I can renominate and get a reviewer I can work with.

I might add, that in my 40+ year publication career, I have seldom met an editor with whom I cannot work. Unfortunately, you are one. In your insistence on complex sentences and large paragraphs, you are insisting on prose not easily read by ESL speakers and younger readers. I believe that is detrimental to WP.

There's no need for you to go back and critique the 1917 and 1918 sections you forgot to review. I am done with this review.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Almost forgot, I owe you an apology for the excessive time for this review. I hope that you can forgive me, but real life has been far too dramatic of late for me to spend as much time on Wiki as I'd have liked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

A simple note, per review instructions, would have sufficed to stay my qualms. As a veteran, I respect that your military duties come first. However, you gave me the impression that you were too wrapped up in your own GANs to bother with my review.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

2nd opinion

I'll focus only on criteria 1a, 1b and 3b as they seem to be the bottlenecks.

• 1a: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and 1b: it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • I would agree with reviewer Sturmvogel 66 here. Choppy short paragraphs make the article seem a bit more logbookish than prose. Likewise, the article seems to border on minutiae. To illustrate, I think sections '1914' and '1915' are very close to an optimally readable & interesting size while sections '1916' and '1917' are 1 or 2 paragraphs over it. Section '1918' definitely needs to be divided into two sections and/or summarized. The lede is within MOS:LEADLENGTH with the article itself at 34,335 characters [2]. I also think that the prose, grammar, style etc. per se are good.
• 3b: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • As described above, sections '1916' and '1917' are a bit overtly detailed. Section '1918' definitely is. Otherwise it seems very fine for a GA.

Conclusion: The article is solid at its core, but aesthetics and minutiae don't let it shine. At this point I agree with the 1st review based on section and para length (WP:PARAGRAPH, WP:DETAIL), although IMHO the lede is according to MOS. Thus, I boldly did a very quick copyedit on the article by uniting short paragraphs and IMHO it is already much better looking and more pleasant to read.

Suggestions: 1) Keep the paragraphs as I've copyedited them just now. 2) Boldly cut sections '1916' and '1917' by a total size of 1–2 paragraphs. 3) Boldly cut section '1918' by approx. 4 paragraphs in size or divide into rational subsections.

Hope that helps, toodaloo! Manelolo (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)