Talk:Pat Pattle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 22:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"opted for military service" Army service? Few will know what you mean. I can't find out exactly what is meant as the source doesn't say. initial capitalisation is problematic throughout, "Mining engineering"Y, "his Squadron", "promoted to Squadron Leader", "Pilot Officer", "Adjutant", etc see MOS:MILTERMS for guidance, also Civil Flying School, meteorologyY, applied mechanicsY, Boxing, Mining company all ranks should be in capitals. Ah, no they shouldn't. Only when they immediately precede the full name, on the first occurrence. Please read the MOS before you start spouting off. What? I'll spout off if I choose to do so. And the comment had nothing to do with any manual of style. It's common sense, whatever wikipedia may say. If you want a GA article on WP, follow the MOS. If not, don't nominate articles here, write for a mirror site, or something. It's simple. Excuse me, I have no idea who you think you're talking to. It certainly is not a beginner. I've done plenty of Good articles and this has never been an issue. So it is simple; use common sense. They appear in articles and in the books (as they should) in capitals. End of story. Dapi89 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] I noticed that you have done a few German bios, that might explain the non-MOS compliant treatment of ranks. I know that some German editors, like Mister Bee, sometimes capitalise when translating German ranks to English due to the initial capitalisation of German nouns. However, this guy is British/South African, the ranks are in English. Does Wikipedia know what its doing? For example, Squadron leader is written as such on the Wikipedia article. Yet it is abbreviated as Sqn Ldr. If one looks through Air Power review, which is an RAF magazine (just one example), ranks are capitalised. Dapi89 (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] Are we even talking about the same thing? If you are writing Squadron Leader "Pat" Pattle for example, it is capitalised like that, if you are writing Pattle was promoted to squadron leader, it is written like that. endash and emdash usage are not IAW MOS, endash for number ranges, see MOS:DASH will amend I've run the script. Greece and squadron leader are overlinked in the lead, elsewhere, Graeme College, London, Pilot Officer, Balkans, Westland Lysander, Oberleutnant, Middle Eastern Theatre, and Roald Dahl are all overlinked, suggest you install User:Ucucha/duplinks to help with locating and fixing these. don't know how to use it. Some of these words appear only one. Lysander does, so can't understand how it is over linked. Some of this I've just seen. Someone has just thrown another link about Graeme college in there with a messy citation. I've deleted it. Saw Lysander x 2. over links I think have been done I have removed the two remaining overlinks, Balkans and Middle Eastern TheatreY not sure about the reliability of acesofww2.com, suggest you delete it per WP:ELNO Eh? Never used it. I wouldn't sink that low! It's in the External links section. If you don't want it there, delete it. Why? What harm is an External Link? Because it is not reliable, per above. External links are unreliable because they're external links? I'm sensing a lack of interest in WP policies and guidance. Did you have a look at ELNO? there are some terms that shouldn't be linked per overlinking, high schoolY, English peopleY, England, boxingY, swimmingY, motor carY, filling stationY, London, fever okay advert should be in full celebrated "celebrated" really isn't an appropriate description for combat done.Y a few more commas are needed here and there, eg On 4 March 1941, PattleY, escorted by five Squadron Hurricanes,, By dawn on the 20 April 1941,Y, It is likely that his total was at least 40 enemy aircraft destroyed, Okay suggest He claimed the first while flying with his No 2, Nigel Cullen. The Wehrmacht didn't intervene in Greece, it invaded it Intervene is more appropriate since it had already been invaded by the Axis I don't think you would be supported by the vast majority of historians. What source uses the term, "intervene"? suggest Pattle had to send pairs of fighters to patrol the area, which helped act as a rudimentary warning system.Y okay prestige missions - prestige isn't a good adjective here, I suggest dropping itY Seizing anthe opportunity drop the comma after Baagoe Other researches or researchers suggest Baker asserts that the true figure could be higher, owing to the inability of post-war researchers to identify an exact figure, due to the loss or destruction of British records in the retreat from Greece or during the subsequent occupation.Y consistency in Italian squadron etc ordinals, 24oGruppo C.T. and 50 Stormo okay academically intelligent is a strange combination. Do you mean "academically gifted"? BTW, this statement in the lead is not supported by a cited statement in the body of the article. I have copy-edited the article to bring it close enough to compliance with the MOS so I can pass it.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Worldcat shows that an isbn is available for Baker, needs to be addedY suggest you use template:cite book in the bibliography section, which will reduce the space used, as well as clutter suggest using shortened footnoting to reduce the clutter and repetition in the notes section while the current set-up meets minimum acceptable standards under WP:FNNR, I strongly suggest you consider the above changes
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	the first para of Battle for Greece is uncitedY (now cited to Baker, but the term "intervention" is really WP:FRINGE in this context, that Germany invaded Greece is WP:BLUE.) there is an big issue here with uncited claims in the table, 11 cells are uncited. If they are relying on the Baker page range, each claim should be cited to the appropriate page of Baker. won't be a problem just four more to do, 15 Sep 1940, 27 Nov 1940, 10 Feb 1941, 23 Mar 1941Y
	2c. it contains no original research.	just a query about the uncited claims in the table, otherwise fineY
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The licensing for File:Pattle.jpg isn't clear, because it hasn't any evidence that the pic was actually taken by a UK government employee This is clearly a crop from IWM 205126507 (ME(RAF) 1260). The licence details need to reflect its origin. This file has now been replaced by the IWM file, so it's fine.Y File:Bf-109E1-9.JG77-(Black-10+~)-Fritz-Borchert-WNr-3282-Greece-1941-01.jpg doesn't have a source, which it needs to qualify for the PD-BritishGov licence used It does now However, that does not reflect what it says on that page of Shores et al. It says "IWM and EG Jones". So I'm a little confused where you are getting the evidence that the photograph was created by the UK Government. Could you clarify? Thanks. It does indirectly. Imperial War Museum (I'm assuming you know of it) and Air Vice Marshal E.G Jones are credited. Jones took the picture. When a picture is created by an officer or servant of the Crown (in the course of his wartime duties) it can be credited to the British Government. I wasn't aware that was the case. I understood that the photographer had copyright (unlike in the US). If that assumption is the basis of the tag, it should be added to the licence information. Further, I couldn't find the image on IWM (not to say it isn't there, it just isn't online), but IWM 205208756 (CM 873) is of the same aircraft, and could be used under the UKGovt licence. This file has now been removed. Y
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~On hold for seven days for the above comments to be addressed~~Listing this article, after having copy-edited it myself to address a number of unaddressed points above.

On the basis of my "no surprises" approach to GA reviewing, at this time the article does not meet GA criteria 1a (largely due to non-compliance with capitalisation per MOS), 2b (due to an uncited paragraph containing a statement that has been challenged and four uncited claims in the table), and 6c (the licensing of two photographs). This review was placed on hold at 09:48 on 13 October UTC, and the seven days will expire at 09:48 on 20 October UTC. I hope that these criteria can be met before the on hold period expires, so that it can be listed as a GA. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing is actually correct. The claims are sourced. See the citation at the beginning of the table. Additional sources are used only used to fill in the details. The statement does not require a citation. Unless the reviewer is challenging the view the Germany invaded Yugoslavia and Greece? Dapi89 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapi89 (talk • contribs)
- I note that one image has been replaced with another, and the other image has now been removed. The term "invaded" is not used, and the term "intervened" for the German attack on Greece is a clear case of WP:FRINGE in my view. The statement has now been cited (to Baker), so that point is now also now addressed. All the claims in the table have now been individually cited. I have copy-edited the article to bring it closer to MOS compliance, so that I can pass it on criteria 1a and list it as GA. If planning to take it to Milhist ACR, I suggest requesting someone from GOCE look at it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]