Talk:C. W. A. Scott

Lead

I just took a quick look at the article and while I have not read the article in depth I can tell you that the lead appears to be way too short for an article of this length. You might want to review WP:Lead for more in-depth detail but one of the main points it makes is "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." which the current lead does not do. I put this hear because I think the article might be a little above "my pay grade" and I think it would benefit from a more experienced editor for the GA and Peer Review, but at first glance I'm pretty sure it won't pass GA with the current lead.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (leech44) thats really helpful, I will get on the case and re-write the lead in the way you have suggested, I think that will make the artical much better too cheers Jimmy3d0 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again (leech44) I have re-written the lead section now and think it is ok, let me know what you think, cheer Jimmy3d0 (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had much time to look this over but you'll want to stay away from one sentence paragraphs, I reorganized a bit to incorporate the existing ones into other paragraphs. Also you want to stay away from using colloquialisms like wined and dined, and watch for WP:PEACOCK statements, "unbelievable time of 52hr. 33 minutes, they reached the finish line in Melbourne in an incredible 71 hours " unbelievable and incredible are probably Peacock expressions in the lead. The lead now is much better than the couple of sentences prior. Structure may be a concern it probably isn't necessary to have the personal information intermixed such as his second marriage. The indication of the birth of his child as a reason to break a record is good however. Hopefully this helps you out, after all I'm no expert.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Name change of this page

User:Necrothesp, While I greatly appreciate your contribution to the page that I created and have done all the research for about my Great Uncle C.W.A. Scott, I do feel that you might have put this change up for discussion on this discussion page Talk:C.W.A. Scott before actualy going ahead and making the change, the reason I say this is because I did think long and hard about whether the title of his page should be grammatically correct by today’s standards i.e. C. W. A. Scott or be as he was actually known, published and referred to in all Newspapers, newsreels and other documentation such as the vast array of advertising that he put his name C.W.A. Scott to in the 1930's while he was alive, and in fact the very reason why I have done hours and months of research on my great uncle is as well as telling his story, to keep his name alive! I would be very grateful if you would consider whether you have actually made the right decision in changing his name as you have, I do also very much appreciate that you may well have made these changes to help the artical since I have nominated it for GA status but if you check all the links refering to all the published documentation from the 1930's you will see that it is the fact that he was known in his lifetime as C.W.A. Scott, any thoughts you have on this subject and indeed anyone else's thoughts would be very welcome, thanks Jimmy3d0 (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It is standard practice on Wikipedia to put spaces between full stops in article titles, as you will see if you look in the categories. People who use initials are known in many different ways, with and without full stops and spaces, frequently down to the style of the time or the publication, but it is best to be consistent in these things. I am actually a little puzzled by your claim, as contrary to what you say there are actually spaces between the full stops in most of the contemporary sources cited in the article! All in all, I did not feel it was a controversial move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes you are right I was obviously too close to the project to see my error (partly because he was my relative). Can I ask you if you are involved with helping to decide if the artical is at GA standard as I am very keen for that to be put into motion, and have been improving the artical as people have advised, thanks for your help Jimmy3d0 (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably easiest to keep this discussion to this page now if you have any further comments, sorry about that I cant believe I missed that in over a year of researching, thanks for your contibution Jimmy3d0 (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:C. W. A. Scott/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This certainly has the potential to be a GA, but there are quite a few issues that mean it will take some work. I'll detail my concerns below and put the review on hold to allow time for them to be addressed. Apologies if it seems like a long list, but it's doable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

general

• Prose:
  • I gave the first paragraph a quick copy edit. You should go over the rest of the article or ask someone else to and check the prose
  • You need a lot more commas in there—the lack of them makes it quite difficult to read
• Ranks and titles should only be capitalised when they're in front of a name
• lot of hyphens (-) which should be endashes (–) or emdashes (—), see MOS:DASH
• The article relies heavily on a primary source, namely his autobiography
• Images need alt text
• References need proper formatting, not just bare URLs—they need titles, publications, publication dates (if known) and retrieval dates at the very least. There are various templates to help format them consistently and the London Gazette refs require the use of Template:London Gazette  Done Thanks to Ohconfucius(talk)

lead

• MOS:BIO is worth a read, if you haven't read it already
  • The article should open with his rank since that was his title  Done
  • Only the name should be bolded (not post-noms like AFC) and you need a comma before the post-noms  Done
  • Place of birth shouldn't be in the lead  Done
  • Full name and dates of birth/death require citations  Done As close as it can be with records available from freeMBD index

Cruiser and heavyweight boxing titles

• In Scott's case the squad commander named Newbigging was a large fellow of some six foot four and had seen a lot of service with the Scots Guards in World War I. Newbigging soon took offence to Scott's precocious attitude, as Scott was undisciplined and fresh from the sugar plantations, where he was well adept at enforcing discipline, but not too keen on taking orders for himself. This clash of personalities lead to Scott and Newbigging having a bout of fisticuffs (as Scott referred to it), of which Scott was the victor. What happened to WP:NPOV?
• Two {{fact}} tags  Done

I'll leave this for now to give a chance for the fixes to be made and check back in a few days.

Thanks HJ, I really appreciate your input on this, I will try and find the time asap to start addressing the points you have raised, I will need help with the prose tho because that really isn't my stong point, as you noticed!! I hope you dont ming if I put a done tick by each point when I or someone else has resolved it, a bit psycological but will help me get on top of sorting through the list thanks again for your help and if you know anyone who would be suited to helping to fix the grammer and any other probs I would be most gratefull! many thanks Jimmy3d0 (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How's this review coming along? Was going well but no progress in a couple weeks. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wizardman, I am still going to sort through the problems that I can fis myself but am so busy with work etc that I just haven't had any time to do anything for a couple of weeks, but I will when I get a chance, I would very much appreciate it though if some-one could go through the grammer issues though as thats not my strong point, but I dont really know who to ask or how to go about getting help, I will try to find some time to deal with the other issues asap, Cheers Jimmy3d0 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

New reviewer

In this message (WT:Good article nominations#Reviews for Tony Blair and C. W. A. Scott the original reviewer indicated that they are unable to carry on, so I shall continue.

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose needs a good copy-edit, the WP:Guild of Copyeditors may be able to help. Unnecessary captilisation and bolding, lack of commas leading to poor readability.

   Over long section names

   Lists, bulleted lists are deprecated.

   Bibliography should be below references, with ELs below them.

   Are articles on the individual aircraft registrations likely in the near future?

   Red linking terms such as squad commander are unnecessary, also this twerm should not be in quotes.

   Not all quotations are in quote marks. Block quotes may be suitable for longer quotes.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citation style is inconsistent, especially the cites to books, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners

   Author, newspaper, date details needed for newspaper sources

   Free DMB is not a reliable source.

   EL section is rather too much, see WP:EL

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   rather too much detail about the divorce, just make the statement with a citation, the full newspaper story is not needed. Likewise the full obituary - publication in full may be a copyright violation. The list of aircraft is unnecessary, perhaps a spin off list article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   10% samples of video or sound clips are permissible, but not the full 9.5 minutes, sevral images lack appropriate no free use rationales for use in this article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This has been under review for a long time with little improvement made. Please address all of the issues raised, check against all of the good article criteria and take to peer review before renomination. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

Hello, Sorry to butt-in, but it would appear to me that a sufficient amount of corrections have been made to reach the standards of a good article. There are many GAs that do not meet the quality of this article, and I believe another look may be useful. Thanks for listening, Wikipedian2 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me! I just haven't been able to find the time to do any more work on the artical recently, I wish I could because I really want to get it to GA status, but its good to hear your views on this and hear that you think it may already be at GA level. Cheers Jimmy3d0 (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Couple of points. First, who chose Scott to fly a DH88? The article gives the impression that he was chosen by de Havilland, which I do not think was th case. And secondly, who was his third wife and when did he mary her?TheLongTone (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on C. W. A. Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.armynet.mod.uk/sports/army_boxing_associat/combined_services/cs_senior_boxing/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724170047/http://www.tomcampbellblack.150m.com/ to http://www.tomcampbellblack.150m.com
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204211241/http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net:80/Historic%20G-A.txt to http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/Historic%20G-A.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110905230352/http://cwascott.150m.com/ to http://www.cwascott.150m.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103205512/http://www.pjcomputing.flyer.co.uk:80/comet/race.html to http://www.pjcomputing.flyer.co.uk/comet/race.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707055345/http://tomcampbellblack2.150m.com/ to http://www.tomcampbellblack2.150m.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on C. W. A. Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/Historic%20G-A.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724170047/http://www.tomcampbellblack.150m.com/ to http://www.tomcampbellblack.150m.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pjcomputing.flyer.co.uk/comet/race.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724170047/http://www.tomcampbellblack.150m.com/ to http://www.tomcampbellblack.150m.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Terrible mess

This article really needs a major rework - there is a massive amount of repetition between sections (for example, the largely unreferenced Biography section contains what appears to be a summary of the rest of the article). The referencing is a mess - an initial inspection has shown two cites out of four checked that do not actually support what is claimed, while the reference formatting itself is terrible - you cannot see what publication refs have come from (pages from Trove are from Australian newspapers, and should state the newspaper where it has come from, Flight is a magazine etc). In addition, the article seems to make far too much use of Scott's own autobiography or of family archives - which aren't secondary sources (and may not pass WP:RS).Nigel Ish (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)