Talk:George Holt Thomas

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the aerospace biography project.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

It is requested that an image or photograph of George Holt Thomas be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Removal of some weird things from the article.

The following bizarre inclusions in this article have been removed

1. Why was the infobox in the article about the newspaper comic "Old Bill" and not about George Holt Thomas himself? I have moved the "Old Bill" infobox inside Thomas's infobox.

2. Why is there a photograph of Geoffrey de Havilland in this article when there is no photograph of the subject of the article?

3. If you have a photograph or scan of the Aircraft Manufacturing Co Ltd. advertisement from The Times, Dec 03, 1918, then, by all means, add it as a thumbnail, as it would undoubtedly have passed into public domain by now. Please don't attempt to cobble up such an advertisement from an infobox caption.

4. Even if you think death at sixty is early, please don't make such editorial comments in section heading. Actually, editorial comments are not supposed to be in articles at all.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Particular editor

Likes to copy-edit basing those edits on the current content of the article and without any other knowledge of the subject deletes facts she/he from her/his world view considers contentious and changes meanings and emphasis. At her/his insistence a section has been removed from this article because the mode of presentation is (it is said) considered unacceptable. Nevertheless the information has to be available to readers and future editors and here it is:

sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes; Items 2 and 3 from the previous section.

If one reads an article on a person who was living in an age when cameras were readily available, and one sees only one photo of a person in the article, one might assume that the person in the photo is the subject of the article. Since the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform and not to confuse, we will not put the reader in such a situation.

As for the thumbnail featuring a photo of an Airco aircraft that begain production in 1920 and a gigantic caption made up of excerpts of a December 1918 Airco avertisement, therefore bearing no relation whatsoever to the subject of the photo, the matter was discussed here* and consensus was established that a thumbnail like that one should not be put in a Wikipedia article, but that any information from that huge caption that could be reliably sourced should be included in the main body of the article. The point was also raised that an advertisement would probably not be considered a reliable source.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. *The section of that project talk page ~~will eventually be~~ has been archived; ~~when it is,~~ I ~~will replace~~ have replaced the link location with the one from the archive. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]