Talk:Archie McKellar/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 10:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a preliminary review of the article and these points need to be addressed before I can pass the article:

There seems to be very little to address. Dapi89 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sentence: McKellar joined the family business in his native Scotland. just seems to be skipped over and seems out of place, as we then go straight into his military career with no further mention.

Thats because there is precious little on him. Dapi89 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this sentence: Included in this total of 21 air victories are 11 Bf 109s. notable enough to be put in the articles intro?

Because it was over half of the type he shot down. When a significant amount of one type are shot down it is acceptable to mention it in the lead - it has been done on other articles. Dapi89 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if speculation such as this belongs in the intro : 22nd—albeit uncredited—and final victory.[3]

It's sourced, so why not?

Does this really have to be mentioned? "During this time he was given no special privileges despite being the boss' son."

I'll have to repeat my answer: Thats because there is precious little on him. So I've tried to include everything possible. Dapi89 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Even at the height of the Battle of Britain he was always clean shaven and immaculately dressed.[1]" As an officer in the RAF, this was expected and i think every officer in the RAF conducted themselves in this manner, and i dont think it warrants mention in the article. Also, does it belong in the Early Life section? Retrolord (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the last comment; No they didn't. A number of well-known aces were known for their grubby appearance. Dapi89 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McKellar was soon to have success in combat and within a year would have become one of the most successful pilots of the Battle of Britain. For a section on personality and leadership, does this belong?

I'll re-read this. Dapi89 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McKellar's attitude to others was either of utmost friendliness or utter dislike; a man without any devious traits, McKellar had a tendency to see everything and everyone in "black and white"—with no grey areas between the extremes. Not sure about the tone of this or what it even means

It meas what it says. It is a piece about his personality and leadership skills. Dapi89 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I./Kampfgeschwader 30 (KG 30—Bomber Wing 30) ?

? Dapi89 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

code 1H+JA, do we really need to know the aircrafts serialnumber, its codename and its pilot? for an article on an individual, it goes into incredible detail on rather trivial aspects.

Yes. There is little info on this man and it is not a large article as a result. This sort of detail is fine. Dapi89 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

his score,? Is that the appropriate word for the encyclopedia and to describe his aircraft shot down total? A score?

Score is acceptable and used frequently with aces. I can change to 'tally' if you like.

by II./Jagdgeschwader 27 (JG 27—Fighter Wing 27) Hauptmann (Captain) Wolfgang Lippert. This sort of detail is excessive

What???? The man that shot him down is not important enough to add?? Is this a joke????

Im not sure " As McKellar died outside the Air Ministry "nominal" dates for the Battle of Britain (10 July—31 October 1940), he is not listed on the Battle of Britain roll of honour at The RAF Chapel, Westminster Abbey." requires a mention in the article. He died outside the dates so he isnt entitled to be on the honour role, this implies the air ministry is somehow incorrect in not putting him on the honour role.

No it doesn't. It means what it says. If anything it clarifies the opposite. Dapi89 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would recomend the ENTIRE list of victories section be removed, not only is much of the info already in the article, but this is just wholly unnessecary and overly detailed.

NOT A CHANCE.

If it were up to you over half of this article would be removed.

I suggest someone who knows what they are doing - in otherwords a competent reviewer take over. Dapi89 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article put ON HOLD until these issues are remedied. Retrolord (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you will have to compromise on a few of these points. Just because there are few facts regarding this individual does not mean that facts that would otherwise be rejected should be included. I dont think it is neccessary for us to know the name, rank, squadron and aircraft of the man who shot him down or of every man he shot down. It is excessive detail. if you persist in your insulting tone and your borderline-vandalism (blanking the page because you disagreed with me) you will be reported to the arbitration commitee or a similar body. So please assist me in reviewing the article and i assure you i am competent in such endeavours. Retrolord (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee only handles very high-level disputes. Retrolord, Dapi89 was chastised at WT:GAN for calling you incompetent. In return I ask that you ensure that you don't use criteria that isn't GA criteria, and I both of you would benefit from not using all-caps (WP:SHOUTING).--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me on that point Jasper, I wasn't aware of that. I understand Dapi89's frustration that I have problems with the article, but i do feel they are valid and i am modelling them on another good article about a flying ace. (Erich Hartmann)

All I ask for is civility and cooperation as I make my review.Retrolord (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you shall get it. GAN can be a frustrating process - and civility is key. You could've presented your initial review in a more-civil tone, but Dapi89 overreacted. We all make mistakes.... and we all get along. I hope for a happy ending to this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After recieving some advice, i have decided it would be best for everyone that i fail the article and allow someone to renominate it. I don't believe me and the nominator can collaborate effectively due to his earlier comments. Retrolord (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to make some sideline comments. It is a question of style on behalf of the author and reviewer how they come to terms over the issues raised. What I mean, some comments fall into the category mandated changes and some fall into the category suggestions. At least this is how see it. As an example from this article, Retrolord had criticized the list of aerial victories. I think he is entitled to criticizing this however it cannot be mandated. We have many articles on flying aces with these lists (the style again has variations). See my most recent article on Hans Waldmann, here the reviewers had explicitly requested this (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot), or this one, and even Hans-Joachim Marseille). A list can have a purpose. The comment made by Retrolord about "I./Kampfgeschwader 30 (KG 30—Bomber Wing 30) ?" is very difficult to interpret, at least for me. What actions should Dapi take here? I can only assume the comment means please help I don't understand the nomenclature here. A possible solution could be to add a footnote. But this requires the two parties to communicate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Misterbee1966 for your comments. I ask that if you wish to communicate with me you do not do it here as this is the review page, and as the article has been failed (For reasons specified above), it would seem discussion here is pointless. Thankyou for understanding. Retrolord (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]