Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RAF Uxbridge/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 [1].

RAF Uxbridge

[edit]

RAF Uxbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrison49 (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected for new nomination SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, based on prose and thoroughness of referencing (spotchecks not done). However, I noticed an issue with "... the 1969 film Battle of Britain were photographed in the 11 Group Operations Room, ..." Photographed seems odd as it implies that they were stills; if it was actual film, why not "shot" instead? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as a suggestion, perhaps making the short references linked to the correct entry in the bibliography using something like {{harv}} family of templates would make more it user-friendly. Citation style, as long as it is consistent, isn't a criteria so this is just a suggestion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll look into that. Also, thanks for spotting the mistake with the Battle of Britain filming. I think it had been changed during a copyedit. Harrison49 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, "photgraphed" is often used as a synonym for fliming, e.g. you have a "Director of Photography", even though it might be better expressed as "Director of Cinematography". Anyway "shot" would take care of it nicely... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since the previous FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Page numbers have been added, external links have been reduced and the full title of AIDU (Aeronautical Information Documents Unit) has been included. Harrison49 (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, also Spotchecked -- Reviewed, copyedited and spotchecked at MilHist ACR, after which I was happy to support. Having looked through changes since then and finding only a couple of minor things to correct, I believe FAC criteria are also met -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to ACR with spotchecks: WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/RAF Uxbridge. - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an image review? Ucucha (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Check grammar on captions. Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:RAF_Uxbridge_Crest.jpg: not required, but generally good practice for the FUR to mention this is the lead infobox image
  • File:Government_Ensign_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg (the source for the infobox flag) appears to be based on a deleted page
  • File:Southern_entrance_to_Hillingdon_House.jpg: if this was created in the early 1900s, wouldn't it be PD in the UK by now? If the FUR is kept, should specify who the copyright holder is. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the image review.
  • Full stops have now been added to captions.
  • I would argue the crest was required as it is an intrinsic part of the station's history and identity and is described within the article. An additional note has been added to the rationale.
  • File:Government Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg appears to have been remade based on File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg. The deleted images seem to have been earlier names for the files.
  • The fair use rationale for Southern_entrance_to_Hillingdon_House.jpg cites the source publication and image credit from within the book, which is the available copyright information. The only UK PD licence as far as I'm aware is for UK Government works, which this is unlikely to be. Harrison49 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also a PD-old template for the UK. If I'm not mistaken, 50 years after the death of the creator. If it was first published before 1923, it is PD in the US and at the very least can be marked as such at Wikipedia; Commons only accepts images that are PD in both the source country and the US. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for checking. I have no other information relating to the creator other than their name so wouldn't be able to use the PD-old template. Would it be best to leave it with the historical fair use template instead? Harrison49 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my understanding, if it were published before 1923 it could be licensed using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and kept on the English Wikipedia; unlike Commons, En-Wikipedia allows files that are free in the US but not the country of origin. Of course, to be safe (especially if the year of publication has not been ascertained) you could keep the fair-use template. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to be able to get through the lead at least without prose concerns :) The second sentence is labored, but then I hit this:

Until the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, the station was open to the public, and a public footpath ran across the site until 1988; it reopened in 2011.

I can't tell what's happening here (what was public when) and when I search the article for "footpath", no hits. I eventually find text about a right of way (which I think should be hyphenated-- not sure though). Here's another example of labored prose:

The station cinema is also Grade II listed.[69] The Battle of Britain War Memorial is a scheduled protected monument.[2] While not listed, several other buildings on the site were identified within the plans for possible retention. These are the Sick Quarters, the Officers' Mess, the gymnasium, the carpenters' block in the grounds of Hillingdon House and a building near the Battle of Britain Bunker.

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to say:

The station cinema is also Grade II listed.[69] The Battle of Britain War Memorial is a scheduled protected monument.[2] The Sick Quarters, the Officers' Mess, the gymnasium, the carpenters' block in the grounds of Hillingdon House and a building near the Battle of Britain Bunker are not listed, but were identified for possible retention.

Tough going, and when adding in the military jargon, hard for a layperson. Please get a non-Milhist person to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I'm sorry it wasn't presented clearly, but a search for "path" would have found the information about the footpath. I've made changes based on your suggestions. Harrison49 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Oppose, at least for now. this article still needs work, as even a cursory look at the lead demonstrates. The muddle over the public footpath still hasn't been sorted out. A few more specific comments follow:
Lead
  • "A footpath that had traversed the site until 1988 was reopened in 2011." So in 1988 it ceased to traverse the site?
Going with "A footpath through the site that had closed in 1988 was reopened in 2011". - Dank (push to talk)
Much better, thanks. Harrison49 (talk)
Early years
  • "The Marchioness of Rockingham, widow of Prime Minister Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham, purchased the house from the Chetwynd family in 1786 for £9,000". When did the Chetwynd family acquire the house? Last we were told it was in the ownership of the Duke of Schomberg. And are you going with delimiters in four-digit numbers or not? In the next section we have "the Royal Flying Corps Armament School which moved into Hillingdon House with 114 officers and 1156 men, making a donation of £2289 12s 9d to the Canadian Red Cross".
Got rid of the comma. If the Chetwynd family wasn't significant, we could always just omit their name. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are other occurrences of commas in four digit numbers throughout the article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harrison?
I was going with delimiters. The only exception had been the old money that the RFC's donation was made in, but that has now been changed. I've removed the Chetwynd family. None of the comprehensive sources I have consulted have any information of owners between the Duke of Schomberg and the Chetwynds. Harrison49 (talk)
  • "Cox & Co, as the company was then known, was formed after Richard Cox was appointed agent to the Foot Guards (later the Grenadier Guards), providing banking services for many regiments of the British Army by the end of the 18th century". The ending of that sentence doesn't match its beginning: "Cox & Co, as the company was then known ... providing banking services for many regiments of the British Army by the end of the 18th century".
Went with "and provided".
First World War
  • "Needing a site for the training of recruits in ground gunnery, the RFC used parts of the estate not required by the Canadians, and established a firing range." That's rather strangely written, as it implies that the RFC did two things: used parts of the estate not required by the Canadians and established a firing range, whereas they presumably established a firing range in the parts of the estate not required by the Canadians?
It might be correct as written. Harrison, use Malleus's suggestion if that covers what you're trying to say.
It is correct, but I've made some changes to the sentence. Besides the ranges, the RFC would have needed other areas for barracks, physical training and similar requirements. Harrison49 (talk)
Inter-war years
  • "... as was the RAF Officers' hospital". Strange capitalisation. Is it called the "RAF Officers' Hospital"? If not, then why is "Officers'" capitalised?
I lowercased it.
  • "On 1 March 1929, the Headquarters of the Royal Observer Corps (ROC) was established at Hillingdon House". Why is "Headquarters" capitalised?
Harrison, is "Headquarters of the Royal Observer Corps" the usual name of the unit?
The military would officially have called it "Headquarters, Royal Observer Corps", but I've removed the capital. Harrison49 (talk)
P.S. I've covered from Post-war years down and the first third, so as not to edit-conflict with Malleus. Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Over to you now, I've promised to look at something else this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second World War
  • "A series of one-day training courses for pilots in the organisation of Group Control took place throughout November." I have no idea what that means.
Me neither. - Dank (push to talk)
It wasn't that important so I have removed it. It meant they were taught how a fighter group was controlled. Harrison49 (talk)
  • "... only the garden wall and door was retained". The subject (garden wall and door) is plural.
Fixed.
Sorry, should have spotted that. Harrison49 (talk)
  • "Churchill was again present at RAF Uxbridge on the fiercest day of fighting of the entire battle – Battle of Britain Day – 15 September 1940." Punctuation needs looking at. Consider: "Churchill was again present at RAF Uxbridge on the fiercest day of fighting of the entire battle ... 15 September 1940."
I went with: ... the entire battle: Battle of Britain Day, 15 September 1940
  • "Luftwaffe pilots became confused at this unexpected landmark that was not on their maps, and so it is believed this contributed to the small number of bombs which fell on the station." That's pretty ugly, especially the "and so it is believed ..." bit.
I went with: "Few bombs fell on the station; Luftwaffe pilots may have mistaken the glass greenhouses at the Lowe & Shawyer plant nursery west of the station for a large body of water not on their maps."
  • "On D-Day, the 11 Group Controller became responsible for ensuring sufficient air patrols of the United Kingdom, the main shipping routes and the beach landing areas". Was that just for D-Day, or from D-Day onwards?
Harrison? - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for D-Day. Harrison49 (talk)
Post-war years
  • "The restored Operations Room in the No. 11 Group Battle of Britain Bunker". "A museum was created within the bunker and the operations room opened for group visits." Which is it to be? Should "operations room" be capitalised or not?
    Both. The bunker houses the Operations Room and a museum. I'm now going for capitals throughout. Harrison49 (talk)
  • "In March 2003 the Under-Secretary of State for Defence was prepared at Uxbridge for a visit to the Gulf." How do you prepare an Under-Secretary of State? Give him a good wash and brush up and clean set of clothes?
    My source said "prepared" but I've changed it to "briefed". Harrison49 (talk)
  • "Over 20,000 people watched the parade, which started from Uxbridge Magistrates Court, passing through the High Street to the RAF station." As "High Street" is capitalised then it must be a proper noun, the name of the street. Therefore prefixing it with "the" is inappropriate; you wouldn't say "passing through the Acacia Avenue" for instance. And what does "passing through" mean in this context anyway? How do you pass through a street?
I changed it to "passing along High Street". - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is common to describe a High Street as "the High Street". A High Street is generally a focal point for a town and the site of main shopping parades, so is treated differently to other streets. Using just "High Street" doesn't look or sound right. "Passing through" meant they went from one end to the other. Harrison49 (talk)
Understood, I just couldn't think of a solution as good as the one you adopted: "passing along the town's High Street". - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought for years that that was correct, but it's not in M-W or the Cambridge Dictionary, it must be "service members". Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 00:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the original "servicemen and women". Harrison49 (talk)
What I understand of FAC style would make it "servicemen and -women". "Gender-neutral" writing is all the rage in the US ... I trust Malleus's judgment more than mine on which version we want for this article for FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with "service members" then. Thanks again for your edits, Dank. Harrison49 (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, picking up on Dank's gender-neutral point, we have "... support group meetings began at the station for the families of servicemen serving during the Gulf War." Was it really only males sent to the Gulf War? "Servicemen serving" sounds a bit awkward in any case. What about something like "personnel serving ..."? Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have gone for "station personnel". Harrison49 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/RAF_Uxbridge/archive1&oldid=1078805153"