Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/RAF Uxbridge

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Uxbridge

edit
Nominator(s): Harrison49 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria set down for A-class articles. Harrison49 (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Not sure all of Masterman's honours need to be included, but if they are can they be wikilinked? Not all readers may be familiar with all of the orders
  • There are a number of very short paragraphs that disrupt textual flow - you might consider combining or otherwise reformulating these
  • Suggest briefly explaining what "Freedom of the borough" is
  • Missing bibliographic info for Sherwood 2007
  • Page ranges should use "pp." and endashes
  • Check formatting of quotes in citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So far I've corrected the page range, removed Masterman's honours, added the bibliographic details for Sherwood 2007 and adjusted the citation quote format. Harrison49 (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better. There's still some choppiness in the prose, but not as much as previously. Page ranges still need to be addressed - you appear to be using emdashes, but should use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The emdashes in page ranges have been replaced. Harrison49 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- I was looking forward to another RAF station article after Northolt... ;-) Now completed my first pass at this, copyediting for prose. I emphasise it's a first pass only, and I haven't time tonight to re-read the thing from top to bottom to ensure things are flowing nicely after my mods, nor have I checked references, image licensing, etc. A few outstanding things following the copyedit:

  • Hillingdon House, the country estate which eventually became RAF Uxbridge, was built in 1717 by the Duke of Schomberg,[3] a general serving under William of Orange (later King William III) and subsequently Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, who was knighted for his part in the 1690 Battle of the Boyne. -- too long; suggest you should simply lose either "and subsequently Commander-in-Chief of the Forces," or "who was knighted for his part in the 1690 Battle of the Boyne." to trim it down.
  • She left the estate to her stepsister Elizabeth, widow of William Weddell MP, who sold it to Josias Du Pré Porcher in 1805 as she had been left Newby Hall and a house in Mayfair by her late husband and had no need of it. -- another long sentence; suggest you could easily lose "as she had been left Newby Hall and a house in Mayfair by her late husband and had no need of it" since it's more detail than is necessary.
  • The hospital opened on 20 September 1915 and closed on 12 December 1917, having had four commanding officers and five Sisters-in-Charge. -- not too long a sentence this time, but "having had four commanding officers and five Sisters-in-Charge" isn't particularly interesting infiormation unless some of them were notable in their own right; I'd lose that bit.
  • For what exactly did the Royal Flying Corps pay the Canadian Red Cross that fee? Was it rent, a donation, or what?
  • A detachment of the RAF Depot from RAF Halton and the Recruits Training Depot arrived in August 1919... -- does this mean one detachment made up of elements of RAF Depot, Halton, and the Recruits Training Depot, or a detachment from the former and the whole of the latter?
  • The T.E Lawarence paragraph is worthwhile but so short that it should probably be merged with another.
  • Should use ndashes for date ranges in the RAF Units table.
  • A general comment, one that I'll revisit when I go over the thing again, is that, as with RAF Northolt, the narrative does jump around a bit in time here and there. I don't think it's too severe an issue and, as before, I realise it's being done to keep the thread of similar subjects or sub-narratives together. However there may be ways to tighten things up in that area. Don't worry too much about this one now, I just mention it while I think of it. In the meantime pls review and/or action the other points above, and I'll come back with the rest of my input in due course -- well done so far. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking through the article and for your copyedits. I've made the changes you have suggested. Harrison49 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that -- changes look good.
  • Re. images, licensing and fair-use rationales look okay to me, though of course things can get tougher at FAC in that regard. You should be quite safe with the station crest in the infobox, but there may be an argument about the hospital one since that unit isn't the prime subject of the article. I realise the historical picture of Hillingdon House comes from a recent book but if it's described as being taken in 1900 I'd have thought a UK PD licence would be appropriate as that's when the original picture was taken. Well done with all those of your own, the Hurricane one at the end is particularly good -- pity about the bin in the Spitfire one though!
  • Re. references, these look reliable to me -- I haven't done any spotchecks as yet but will endeavour to get to that.
  • Re. level of detail, I think you're fine there.
  • Re. structure, this relates to the point I made earlier where I felt there was a bit of jumping around. I've had another think about it and believe the thing is that some of your subsections under History relate to subject (e.g. Royal Air Force, Observer Corps) and some to time period (e.g. Second World War, Post-war years). I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to make it all time-based, using the following subheaders: Early years, First World War, Inter-war years, Second World War, Post-war years. Effectively this'd mean merging the current Government purchase subsection with the first (short) para of Royal Air Force to make the new First World War subsection; the rest of Royal Air Force and the Observer Corps subsection get merged to form the new Inter-war years subsection; and you're fine as you are from then on. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the sections and repositioned some paragraphs where necessary - it looks much better. The historical photograph of Hillingdon House is credited to a 'D.Rust' but the only UK public domain licence I've found is for the British Government. If D.Rust took the photograph, it is unlikely they were working for the British Government in 1900. Which free licence would count? Harrison49 (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, and you've merged the ROC info in at the appropriate points, which helped. Re. the image licence, I was under the impression that UK copyright granted PD for images taken before a certain year whether government or not (like Australia's PD for all pre-1955 photos), however I may be wrong there. Just one other thing re. that pic, I'd have thought you could leave it on the left to maintain the alternate placings you had before -- not a biggie though. Almost ready to support, will just complete a spotcheck of a source or two when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look and the only licence I've found relates to the British Government, but I might not be looking in the right place. I moved the photograph to the right as the new section heading would be displaced otherwise. Harrison49 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck -- last thing before wrapping up this review, randomly checked online sources for citations #19, #20, #31:
  • #19: Found no evidence of plagiarism or close paraphrasing and the article appears to accurately reflect the content of the source -- no action req'd.
  • #20: Couldn't see the article info in the source indicated -- pls check and let me know if I've missed something.
  • #31: One issue among the four instances of this citation -- in the article you say Churchill repeated the quote in the House of Commons four days later, pretty well identical to the source's He repeated the quote in the House of Commons four days later. I realise that while copyediting I innocently changed the last bit as you'd written it from "on 20 August 1940" to "four days later" but even so the sentence construction is very similar and should be recast in this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With #20: sorry about that. I have this source which could be used alternatively [1]. Would it be an acceptable source? Harrison49 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm, this is sort of the online equivalent of a community newspaper, eh? Not quite the same as Timesonline... ;-) I'd be interested in other reviewers' opinions. Alternatively, I'd have thought the local library would have a copy of his bio Reach for the Sky, which would surely refer to it -- might be available on preview at Amazon or GoogleBooks too... This and the bit about the Churchill quote are relatively minor, it's more that I expect you'll take this to FAC as you did Northolt, and they tend to leap on such things there... Anyway, while I think another source is probably advisable for #20, I'm ready to support now -- good work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your help with this. I've found a book source which has replaced the online news article. Harrison49 (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know what "the company acted as agent" means.
I've removed this as my source did not have a clear meaning. Harrison49 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minute": I went with "Minutes from a meeting" ... is that right?
    • Butting in, I suspect not. In the Commonwealth military (as I know from personal experience) a "minute" is a kind of memo, distinct from "minutes of a meeting". Confusing I know, and I wouldn't argue if the more general term "memo" was used in its place, though I'll leave that to Harrison to consider. At any rate I don't think it should remain as "minutes from a meeting"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks much Ian, I'll change to "memo". - Dank (push to talk) 11:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all points of views": Is "views" in the quote?
Sorry, that should have been "view". Harrison49 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "practiced": That's right in AmEng, but in BritEng, the verb is "practised".
  • Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Post-war years. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits Dank. Harrison49 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/RAF_Uxbridge&oldid=456635426"