GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 17:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Interesting topic, and a detailed looking article. I'm a little daunted that all the sources are print, as that will delay checking references; but it's possible that some of the texts will either be available in my local library or will be digitised on Google Books. I'll read the article over the next few days and then start to leave comments. SilkTork ^YES! 17:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've never had a reviewer say that before! If you cannot get hold of the books to check, what will happen then? Dapi89 (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hi, sorry to jump in. If I might offer a suggestion, Google Books might have snippet views. However, I believe that generally at GAN print sources can be accepted on good faith if a reviewer is unable to view them themselves. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for clarifying. Dapi89 (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I never accept in good faith, I always check. I wouldn't feel comfortable passing the contents of an article without doing at least a minimal check that what it says is reasonably true and accurate. That doesn't mean I check each and every source, but I do some background reading and research. I use what I discover to see if the article covers the main points, and hasn't left out negative or significant alternative views. Then I will check random cites in the article to ensure what is said in the article is what is said in the source. If the cites I randomly check are fine, then I feel comfortable that the article can be trusted; but if one or other of my checks turns up a problem then I will do more checking, and if necessary will fail the article. Different reviewers will approach things differently, though I'd be disappointed if someone passed as GA or FA an article where they hadn't bothered to check if the contents were correct. I'll be starting to make some comments shortly. SilkTork* ^YES! 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I believe not accepting in Good Faith is a violation of Wikipedia's core principles. I also find it very, very* odd that a reviewer operates on that basis. I have never heard of this 'hard ass' approach before. I appreciate the principle and thoroughness, don't get me wrong, but it just seems way over the top. Still, there isn't much controversy over this subject. My main concern is that your approach will take forever. Dapi89 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] You may be misunderstanding WP:AGF, which is about civility. I cannot assume good faith in regard to verifiability when checking that information in the article is correct. You've asked that the article be checked against GA criteria, which includes areas such as bias, and original research. The idea is that an uninvolved editor is doing an independent check. If we were simply to take people's word that the article is OK, then there would be no need for an independent check, you could just list the article as a GA yourself. Do you see? I understand your concern that the GA review will take a while. Some reviews are quick, and some take a while. I've done reviews on simple, small articles which were well prepared, and had excellent easily accessible sources, in one day. Others have taken more than a month. It depends on circumstances. Also, as we are all volunteer workers on this charity educational project sometimes real life intervenes to slow things down. Sometimes people wait for months for a review, sometimes a review is picked up quickly by a reviewer. It's fairly random. Speed, unfortunately, is not something that is built into the system. Sometimes when people want a quick review they may directly ask a GA reviewer they know to look at an article. I've been asked several times, and I don't mind doing that. I am interested in this topic, which is why I picked it, and I am looking forward to doing the review - I have already ordered Reach for the Sky; Flying Colours; Bader: the man and his men; The Bader Wing; and Bader's Tangmere Spitfire's from my local library, and two of those are in the library waiting for me to pick up; however, if you feel that you would rather somebody else looked at the review, I can delete this page, and allow the review to be picked up by someone else. No worries, no hard feelings. Let me know what you want to do. SilkTork ^YES! 13:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please continue. You've already gone out of your way to order the books. Sounds find to me. I'm not exactly the most patient of types. I hope it is easy enough to follow. You might want to have the Mackenzie book rather than reach for the sky. It far easier to follow. But it is up to you. I hope the article doesn't ruin you're interest in Bader! Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I ordered the books that my library had, which should be more than sufficient - they didn't have Mackenzie. I don't actually read the books I get for GA reviews from cover to cover - it's a spot check. I dip in here and there, look at the contents page, at the index, and check out a couple of statements in the article. It doesn't take that long. The actual speed of a review, as I said, will vary, but I am not deliberately slow, though I would tend to prioritise checking the article than hurrying the review. I note on your userpage that you've been through a few GA reviews, so you know that they tend to vary. I also note that in one GA review the reviewer did explicitly say they were AGF regarding the sources. I have left a message for that reviewer as I would be interested to learn where this notion is coming from. Our guidelines - Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not do firmly indicate that sources need checking. Anyway, I look forward to doing the review, and working with you. Regards SilkTork* *^YES! 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Interesting topic, and a detailed looking article. I'm a little daunted that all the sources are print, as that will delay checking references; but it's possible that some of the texts will either be available in my local library or will be digitised on Google Books. I'll read the article over the next few days and then start to leave comments. SilkTork *^YES! 17:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had a reviewer say that before! If you cannot get hold of the books to check, what will happen then? Dapi89 (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to jump in. If I might offer a suggestion, Google Books might have snippet views. However, I believe that generally at GAN print sources can be accepted on good faith if a reviewer is unable to view them themselves. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Dapi89 (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never accept in good faith, I always check. I wouldn't feel comfortable passing the contents of an article without doing at least a minimal check that what it says is reasonably true and accurate. That doesn't mean I check each and every source, but I do some background reading and research. I use what I discover to see if the article covers the main points, and hasn't left out negative or significant alternative views. Then I will check random cites in the article to ensure what is said in the article is what is said in the source. If the cites I randomly check are fine, then I feel comfortable that the article can be trusted; but if one or other of my checks turns up a problem then I will do more checking, and if necessary will fail the article. Different reviewers will approach things differently, though I'd be disappointed if someone passed as GA or FA an article where they hadn't bothered to check if the contents were correct. I'll be starting to make some comments shortly. SilkTork *^YES! 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe not accepting in Good Faith is a violation of Wikipedia's core principles. I also find it very, very odd that a reviewer operates on that basis. I have never heard of this 'hard ass' approach before. I appreciate the principle and thoroughness, don't get me wrong, but it just seems way over the top. Still, there isn't much controversy over this subject. My main concern is that your approach will take forever. Dapi89 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be misunderstanding WP:AGF, which is about civility. I cannot assume good faith in regard to verifiability when checking that information in the article is correct. You've asked that the article be checked against GA criteria, which includes areas such as bias, and original research. The idea is that an uninvolved editor is doing an independent check. If we were simply to take people's word that the article is OK, then there would be no need for an independent check, you could just list the article as a GA yourself. Do you see?

I understand your concern that the GA review will take a while. Some reviews are quick, and some take a while. I've done reviews on simple, small articles which were well prepared, and had excellent easily accessible sources, in one day. Others have taken more than a month. It depends on circumstances. Also, as we are all volunteer workers on this charity educational project sometimes real life intervenes to slow things down. Sometimes people wait for months for a review, sometimes a review is picked up quickly by a reviewer. It's fairly random. Speed, unfortunately, is not something that is built into the system. Sometimes when people want a quick review they may directly ask a GA reviewer they know to look at an article. I've been asked several times, and I don't mind doing that.

I am interested in this topic, which is why I picked it, and I am looking forward to doing the review - I have already ordered Reach for the Sky; Flying Colours; Bader: the man and his men; The Bader Wing; and Bader's Tangmere Spitfire's from my local library, and two of those are in the library waiting for me to pick up; however, if you feel that you would rather somebody else looked at the review, I can delete this page, and allow the review to be picked up by someone else. No worries, no hard feelings. Let me know what you want to do. SilkTork *^YES! 13:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue. You've already gone out of your way to order the books. Sounds find to me. I'm not exactly the most patient of types. I hope it is easy enough to follow. You might want to have the Mackenzie book rather than reach for the sky. It far easier to follow. But it is up to you. I hope the article doesn't ruin you're interest in Bader! Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ordered the books that my library had, which should be more than sufficient - they didn't have Mackenzie. I don't actually read the books I get for GA reviews from cover to cover - it's a spot check. I dip in here and there, look at the contents page, at the index, and check out a couple of statements in the article. It doesn't take that long. The actual speed of a review, as I said, will vary, but I am not deliberately slow, though I would tend to prioritise checking the article than hurrying the review. I note on your userpage that you've been through a few GA reviews, so you know that they tend to vary. I also note that in one GA review the reviewer did explicitly say they were AGF regarding the sources. I have left a message for that reviewer as I would be interested to learn where this notion is coming from. Our guidelines - Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not do firmly indicate that sources need checking. Anyway, I look forward to doing the review, and working with you. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

CBE mentioned in lead but not in main body - his knighthood is mentioned, but that was a different, later, order. The opening sentence of the lead is quite cluttered. There is a balance between the need to cite statements that a reader might query, and making an article look and feel readable. I'm wondering if there is a need to cite all the decorations in the opening sentence. See WP:LEADCITE. On the question of decorations/awards, I note there isn't a specific section for that, nor one to overview Bader's impact and legacy. There is a Tributes section. I am wondering if a Legacy section might be helpful. Perhaps a Legacy section, with a subsection for Awards and or Tributes. It's just a suggestion. SilkTork *^YES! 15:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with File:Douglas Bader.jpg, though it appears to be a crop of File:Douglas-Bader-on-wingLG.jpg, so that should be easy to sort out. The rest of the images are fine. SilkTork *^YES! 15:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check your sources that Bader's father served in the Royal Flying Corps. This source doesn't confirm that. It suggests that it was his uncle who was in the RFC, and that his father was a Civil Engineer who was commissioned into the RE and died while still serving with the army. Also check your sources regarding his rank. The online source says he was commissioned into the RE, and he has the title of major, yet the article says he was a sapper, which in the RE means a private (that is a non-commissioned soldier). SilkTork *^YES! 00:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this one. I never wrote that his father was in the RFC. I put in that he was an RE engineer. Dapi89 (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to forget. You added it June last year - [1]. No worries, it was removed the day before you made your comment: [2]. SilkTork *^YES! 13:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closer citing is required. At the moment there is end paragraph citing, which may be acceptable, but there is a lot of varied information in some of the paragraphs, and some readers may wish to check some of the statements as they go along. Such as:
- "Bader's step father did not become the father figure he needed."

- "His mother showed little interest in Douglas and sent him to his grand parents on occasions."
- "Bader's competitive nature saw him shoot his younger brother with an air gun at close range."
- "His mother refused to allow Bader to attend Cambridge in December 1927, claiming she could not afford the fees."
- "he found himself in a two-horse race for the Sword of Honour with Patrick Coote but lost." (the term "two-horse" is not needed - the sentence makes clear he is in a race with another person). The Sword of Honour link goes to the trilogy by Evelyn Waugh.
- "the Bulldog had directional stability problems at low speeds which made such stunts exceptionally dangerous."
- "after a long convalescence throughout which he needed morphine for pain relief"
This list is not exhaustive, just examples. Not every statement in an article needs citing, but strong statements such as those are best with a close cite. SilkTork *^YES! 00:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The external links needs checking. See WP:EL. SilkTork *^YES! 00:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check - "In June 1976 Bader was knighted for his services to disabled people.[133] His award was given by Prime Minister James Callaghan." I think the wording is wrong - nominated perhaps? SilkTork *^YES! 01:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links need attention: Ascot, James Doolittle, James Robb, Distinguished Flying Cross, Operation Sealion, Operation Dynamo, courts martial, Air Vice Marshal, Goodwood. SilkTork *^YES! 12:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is quite good, though the opening sentence is problematic. Our guideline for writing the lead is WP:Lead which offers some good advice, particularly: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article." The detail regarding planes shot down is perhaps too much for the opening sentence, and the number of honours might be reduced per MOS:BIO. The information is good, but could be included elsewhere.

Details in the lead should follow those in the main text. Lead says: "In 1928, Bader joined the RAF. On 14 December 1931 at Woodley airfield near Reading, he lost both his legs in an aircraft crash attempting a slow roll at very low level following jibes about his not wanting to perform aerobatics that day." Main text says: "In 1931 Douglas undertook training for the Hendon Air Show. Two pilots had been killed attempting aerobatics. The pilots were warned not to practice these manoeuvres under 2,000 feet and to keep above 500 feet at all times.[27] Nevertheless, on 14 December 1931, while visiting Reading Aero Club, he attempted some low-flying aerobatics at Woodley airfield in a Bulldog Mk. IIA, K1676, of 23 Squadron,[28] apparently on a dare." There had been some information in the previous section about when he was training in 1930 that "Receiving jibes from a rival squadron (No. 25 Squadron RAF), Bader took off to perform aerobatics and show off his skill." It's not clear what is going on, and the prose doesn't help. Bader "took off to perform..." - and then what? We are, to coin a pun, left in the air! I feel the lead section could do with an overhaul - make Bader's notability clearer in the opening sentence, reduce clutter. Make sure that important details in lead and main text match up. Make sure that the lead does adequately cover the main aspects of Bader's life. SilkTork *^YES! 12:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make those inclusions (I don't think I did) I'll just delete them. Dapi89 (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is a little unclear in places. And sometimes uses casual language - "Douglas pestered the Air Ministry for a posting" - "pestered" is inappropriate, as is use of the first name. "Squadron Leader Geoffrey Stephenson, a close friend from his Cranwell days, was the commanding officer, and it was here that he got his first glimpse of a Spitfire." Who got a first glimpse? It reads as though it is Stephenson, though I think the intention was Bader. "After the French campaign, the RAF prepared for the coming Battle of Britain in which the Luftwaffe intended to achieve air superiority before attempting to launch an invasion of Britain, codenamed Operation Sealion." Operation Sealion could be the codename for a number of items in that sentence - Britain, the invasion, the French campaign, or the RAF preparations. I recommend asking someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to go through the article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"He levelled out at 24,000 ft, pulled himself together, and on taking a look around discovered he was now alone in the sky." The style and tone of this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It reads like a dramatic account. SilkTork *^YES! 16:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the complication. Its simple description of combat. Dapi89 (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference section, though it uses the alternative system of shortened rather than full citation. This is acceptable for GA purposes, though consideration could be given to the standard and more widely used system of full citation as this is more useful to the reader wishing to check a particular source. Under the short system, the reader has to click through to the short cite, and then find the full citation in a different list. The short system can be improved by having a second click through to the detailed list, though this can be avoided by simply using the standard full citation method. SilkTork *^YES! 12:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Featured articles use this standard, which is far superior to messy long citations. I can't stand doing it any other way. As for the reader, its just tough. It stakes seconds to investigate. Dapi89 (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closer inline citation is needed as there are a good number of contentious statements that appear to be unsourced. SilkTork *^YES! 12:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is sourced by a citation at the end of the paragraph. If you have specific instances, please list them. Dapi89 (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ten to ? the OR section until later on when I've done more background reading and checked sources. SilkTork *^YES! 12:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Combat credos section is rather short. This could be built up into a Fighting technique section, like Erich_Hartmann#Fighting_technique. SilkTork *^YES! 15:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost nothing about Bader's career after he left the RAF, yet we are told that his "workload was exhausting", and "Throughout later life, he campaigned for the disabled and in 1976 was knighted for his services." Indeed he also got a CBE for his services for the disabled. What did he do? It must have been significant to get two major awards. We are told he "also became internationally famous", though this is not explained. Was it because of the book and film, Reach for the Sky? Given that a number of people will know about Bader from the film, a section on the making of both film and book, and Bader's involvement would be useful. What is Shell Aircraft Ltd? What achievements (if any) did Bader make as chairman? Was it purely a honorary title, or did he actually do something. Given Bader's personality, I can't imagine him accepting an empty post - I think he'd want a challenge. And it might be appropriate to mention the Bader Foundation in the Legacy section. SilkTork *^YES! 16:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

There is much to like about this article. Information has been collected and presented in a logical manner. The prose could do with a decent copy-edit as it is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia; this may be due to sticking too closely to the source texts, which would be written with drama in mind. A little tightening up in that area should be enough, though it would help to get some experienced writers to do it from the Guild of copy-editors. It needs closer inline sourcing, so readers can directly check a statement, and it would be helpful to use the standard full citation style, rather than the short style, especially as some of the statements are quite personal, and quite strong. More coverage of Bader's life after the RAf, his Legacy, his combat technique, his charity work, and the book and film of his life would be useful. SilkTork *^YES! 16:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amend and build lead per WP:lead and comments above
Extend coverage to:
- Life after RAF
- Legacy
- Combat technique
- Charity work
- Chairmanship of Shell Aircraft
- Reach for the Sky
Copy-edit
Closer citing
Sort out File:Douglas Bader.jpg
- The image appears to be "fair use" on this article, and I have tidied up the image licences and details. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this on hold for an initial 14 days (to cover holiday period, and also to allow me to examine sources), and inform significant contributors and WikiProjects. SilkTork *^YES! 16:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insightful comments. I will definitely take a look at the prose in the next few days. --John (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer one of the comments above an Honours and awards section created (which is normal in other aviator articles) and refs moved from lead. MilborneOne (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progress - looking to close

I'm pleased to see there has been some recent good progress. However, I have been reading some of the book sources I ordered from my local library, and I note that Bader didn't just train for Hendon, he took part, and won the pairs display with Harry Day, repeating the display two months later at Cramlington. What concerns me about this piece of information, is that I have - without any deep research - already uncovered basic mistakes and omissions in the research and sourcing for this article, and now more turns up

Dapi89, the nominator, has informed me that he will be unable to pay much attention to this review for the rest of the month, and has requested the GA be closed. Normally, as long there is progress being made, there is no need for a GA review to be closed because a nominator drops out. However, given that the basis for the article appears to be unsound, and therefore each statement will need checking, and thorough research will need to be done to ensure that there are no more significant mistakes and omissions, I think it would be better to close the review to allow people time to do the appropriate research and writing needed to bring this up to GA standards, and then to apply again.

I will keep this open to the 10th Jan to allow people to respond, and am prepared to keep the review open for a bit longer if someone puts forward a convincing case for being able to do the appropriate research and writing within a reasonable time span. SilkTork *^YES! 13:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the same airshow, so there is no mistake. I did not have time to sort it out before you closed it. But I'll renominate it in Feb when I have a decent amount of time. Please read Turner's book carefully, there are some mistakes in it. Dapi89 (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked my sources and the statement as I wrote it was correct. Bader was in training for the Air Show in 1931, and he did not take part the following spring, because of the crash, December 1931. The competition you ment was the 1931 (spring) competition, which he won with Day. Dapi89 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close

For various reason, as detailed above, this does not currently meet GA criteria, and there is insufficient progress on attending to the issues, so I am closing this as a fail. I do have at this point five books from my local library, so I may be nibbling at the article to see what improvements I can make. SilkTork *^YES! 16:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]