Talk:Special Air Service/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There are some lines that could use fixing. For example: Then to carry out operations supporting the Allied advance through Belgium, the Netherlands and eventually into Germany needs a verb. I'd suggest asking Dank - he's quite good at copy-editing and polite about it. He's helped me a lot with articles I've taken to ACR and FAC.

   User Dank asked to do a copy edit. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, I'm going to decline, I'm limiting copyedits to WP:SHIPS articles that show up at A-class review or FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyway - I have added a request for a copy edit here Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've answered the request and expect to work through copy editing the next few days,  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have also checked it over. Diannaa ^TALK 04:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   What makes Armedforces.co.uk reliable? It might certainly be, but I don't know. Has this been discussed before (i.e., is there a link-able discussion you could point me to?)

   I believe it was reliable but have changed to a better on line ref from the MpD which has some changes in detail so presumably more up to date. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

   That looks good, though there's another (see here) citation to the website. It's just a citation for the 2nd footnote, which shouldn't be hard to replace. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

   Changed to a web ref from the MOD --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

   Looks good now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I don't know if this is actionable, but is there any sort of standard equipment for the members of the unit? For example, with Delta Force, customized M1911s are sort-of-a standard piece of equipment. If there's anything like that, it would be worth mentioning. Just a thought.

   No there is nothing standard and they are believed to be able to select from a range of weapons to suit the mission in progress. The M16 rifle and Squad automatic weapon were used in the Gulf War and the seem to be popular but to say they are standard would be misleading and probably difficult to cite.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

   That's fine then. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   File:SASWings.png - This appears to be a photograph of the actual wings, not a depiction of them, so the uploader obviously cannot publish it under the GDFL himself. This would probably fall under PD-UK-Gov, but it might be worth checking on Commons to have it clarified.

   Commons contacted and question asked --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

   Same with File:Uk-sas.svg - more than likely PD-UK-Gov (well, the original would be, but this is a derivative work).

   There was a image in commons which I have now used File:SasclothBadge.jpg

   Well, that image has the same problem as the illustration; the uploader obviously doesn't hold the copyright over the image, and so cannot release it to the PD. Both images should probably fall under PD-UK-Gov like the photo of the wings. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

   I have been directed to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for the status of the cap badge and wings. So question posted just waiting an answer. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

   Both images deleted until I can get a response over copyright concerns.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

   I commented at the copyright questions page, but while the images are gone, the page has no copyright issues. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

   I have replied to the question asked at copyright questions - thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is pretty close, and I'm really pleased to see an article about a more widely known topic being improved (though not pleased enough to stop working on my obscure warships, of course). I look forward to working with you to ensure this article meets GA requirements. Parsecboy (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Thanks for the review awaiting any further comments --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

   The prose looks a lot better now, I'll go ahead and pass this for GA now. Excellent work! I'll make one suggestion though: the lead seems a little light, so you might want to expand it a bit before you go to higher reviews. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy editing

Without having the actual sources cited at hand, it is unclear what is meant by "in an attempt at deception" regarding their naming. Can someone provide an explanation? Thanks!  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The chronology of Calvert and A, B, C squadrons is unclear; the order in the article implies B, then A, then C; but, of course, the alphabet implies A, then B, then C.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

1. What I was trying to put across is that they were; originally called L Detachment, Special Air Service Brigade in an attempt at deception. As the suggestion was that there was supposed to be other detachments A,B,C.... L . does that make sense ?

   Reworded that section see if its now clearer. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We are good on all the above. I left a question on your talk on the 16 month CRW training cycle, feel free to respond where most convenient, thanks!  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) On training, there is mention of 200 on average at the start of each selection, but the article doesn't say how many of those make it through. Thanks!  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just closing this thread, # found and added. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wings or sword

With regard to the latest back and forth, this reference appears at the Rhodesian SAS article:

The Originals by Gordon Stevens ISBN 978-0-09-190182-0, Page 57, "(Bob Bennet)....designed by Bob Tait....he called it a Flaming Sword, but it became a winged dagger over the years", "(Johnny Cooper)....Bob Tait MM & Bar....designed it......and it's not a winged dagger. They're flames. The sword of Excalibur. When "The Winged Dagger" came out we laughed our heads off."

On the face of it, it would appear the article should cover both. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is covered in uniform distinctions:

The Special Air Service, like every British regiment, has its own uniform distinctions. Their normal barracks headdress is the sand-coloured beret, their cap badge is a downward pointing winged sword worked in cloth of a Crusader shield with the motto Who Dares Wins.{#tag:ref|Designed by Bob Tait in 1941, it was originally a flaming sword, but it became a winged dagger over the years|group=nb} --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Peters PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

""it became a winged dagger over the years"" - balderdash - it hasn't changed since designed - errors in interpretation by ignorant comnic book readers do not change what the design is.Brookesward (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok provide a source --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim you are being incredibly obstinate. The source is there above....from The Originals by Gordon Stevens.....both Bob Bennet and Johnny Cooper confirm that they are flames and it is a sword, and that THE DESIGNER, Bob Tait himself also called it a flaming sword. Why are thse references not good enough? The fact that it has erroneously become known by others as a winged dagger does not alter the reality that they are in fact flames and a sword. Two of the Originals and the designer say so. Who are we to argue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.60.123 (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)