Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RAF Northolt/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 SandyGeorgia 17:10, 30 May 2011 [1].

RAF Northolt[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrison49 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has come a long way in recent months and I feel it meets the featured article critera. It was recently promoted as a good article, has been peer reviewed and had copy edit. In my opinion it is well referenced and covers the history of the station well. Harrison49 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - it's not perfect, but it's much improved, and I now feel it meets the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Comments - issues adequately addressed to remove opposition. I'll try to offer further comments later. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose at this time[reply]

  • "Runway 26/08 had been extended in February that year to accommodate the larger transport aircraft required by the Command" - source?
  • "As a result, Northolt has been extensively redeveloped with new facilities for these operations." - source?
  • Avoid using one-sentence paragraphs and other choppy constructions
  • WP:OVERLINK - don't link common terms like Europe, don't repeat links (especially in close proximity) (rechecked 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC), not fixed)
Many links have been removed. Could you point out which articles shouldn't be linked to? Harrison49 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I delinked everything I could come up with a reason to delink. Let me know if it's not good enough, Nikki, it's not what I usually do. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOS edits needed - don't use single quotation marks except within larger quotes, check hyphen/dash use, etc (Rechecked 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC), remaining issues include linkrot)
    • Not something I usually check, but I've run the link checker at the top right of this page, and that's the only dead link. Anyone have a substitute? - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was a PDF, so I have linked to the page the PDF is linked to from. It appears that when the file is linked to from elsewhere, it displays as being unavailable. Harrison49 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think more copy-editing is needed - for example, "during the First World War I" (rechecked 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC), issues remain - for example "an annual maximum of 7,000 a year")
    • Amazing ... how did you find the only one so quickly? I just went through the article again, and found no other redundancies (within a sentence at least), with the arguable exception of two "alls", which I've removed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing needs to be checked - missing bibliographic details for Birtles 2010 and Bader 2004, books sources need page numbers, referencing format is overall rather inconsistent
  • What makes this a reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions. So far, references have been added for the first two points, several repeated links have been removed, the copy edit mistake you have highlighted has been fixed and the source you have drawn attention to has been replaced with a book source. The other references given to books withot bibliographic details should be on the way as these were added by another user who I have asked to add them in. Harrison49 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A new copy edit has been completed and the referencing has been harmonised. I am in the process of getting the page numbers for the Bristow source. Harrison49 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers for the Bristow source have been added. The book does not have an ISBN which explains the absence of this. Harrison49 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are still issues with wikilinking - for example, Her Majesty is a dab link, RAF West Ruislip is repeated, etc - and referencing format remains fairly inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove the extra links, however, what is inconsistent in the referencing format? I have removed the author details where individual names were not available and the names of the organisations responsible had been used in their place. Harrison49 (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples: in ref 17 the author is listed first name first, whereas in most other refs the author appears last name first; ref 12 repeats "Royal Air Force" for both author and publisher while ref 2 does not; "Hansard" is not an author but the name of a publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, these have now been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments - Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "with services transferring from other stations" seems quite vague, even for the lead. I would just omit it completely
    • Agreed, I removed it because it was implied by the first half of the sentence, but I wouldn't object if someone wants to add more detail (probably not in the lead). - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of "whilst" is considered to be somewhat deprecated
    • I will gleefully replace "whilst" whenever I see it at FAC, but only if we can get a stronger consensus than we've been able to get so far. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They then sought an aerodrome" - are "they" the aviation pioneers or the British Army?
  • "led to the need for" -> "necessitated"? Check for other instances of excessive wordiness
    • Done, and checked. - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may, Nikki, I'd like to pull in both directions here. I encourage anyone bringing something to A-class or FAC to read it through slowly thinking about "tightness". This isn't just a fussy copy-editor preference; if a "tighter" way to put something occurs to you, it will usually be clearer and easier to read, and sometimes it fixes problems you didn't even know were there. OTOH, don't force it; the time spent obsessing over word choice or grammar might be better spent writing another article, especially if you're not that comfortable with word choice and grammar. Others can help with the polishing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glebe Farm in Ickenham, Hundred Acres Farm and Down Barnes Farm" - are these all in Ickenham? If so, reorder, if not, where are they?
    • Agreed that knowing where the farms are would help, and if you don't know, maybe some more general description (what county, near what city) would be better. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I've added that these were in Ruislip.
  • Is "British Government" a proper noun (ie. is that the official name)?
    • I've lowercased all 3 instances of "government"; anyone have a problem with that? - Dank (push to talk)
  • Additional hyphens needed, for example "fifteen month period" -> "fifteen-month period
  • Conversion for "within two miles"? (and did they just have really bad aim?)
  • What is a "day fighter base"? By "civilian flights" do you mean commercial flights or recreational flights?
    • A day fighter base was where fighter aircraft optimised for daytime operations flew from. I've changed this to read "a base for daytime fighter operations".
  • "the crew's lack of understanding of English and military air traffic control procedures had contributed significantly" - the procedures themselves or the crew's lack of understanding of them contributed to the crash?
    • Seems clear; does it seem implausible? - Dank (push to talk)
      • I've added "both" to make it clear that the crew struggled with both points.
  • Wikilink aggregate?
  • Don't capitalize "the" in "the Queen". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging purely from ghits, I'm not sure about this one. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most reviewers prefer to see consistency on "First World War" vs. "World War I". We tend to prefer "First World War" in BritEng and "World War I" in AmEng, but I don't think it matters. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many one-sentence paragraphs. See if you can either do without them or find a way to work them into the narrative.
  • Ref 61 is oddly placed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help Dank. The GOCE copy edit replaced most links for the First and Second World Wars to read World War I or II, per their article names. I have changed all mentions so that this is the same throughout. The reference 61 now has a supporting line and I have expanded the single sentence paragraphs. Harrison49 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer. I checked the things Nikki mentions above; I got most of them the first time through, and I've combined the one-sentence paragraph with another paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- Taken first pass at the article, making various trims and tweaks. While it looks quite comprehensive, I'm not entirely sure about the way it jumps about in time, though I appreciate this is to try and keep related information together. Will have another look from top to bottom tomorrow, when I review references and other aspects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had another look, further comments:

  • Structure/flow: I still think the jumping back and forth in time, even if it's to try and keep related info together, perhaps does the article more harm than good. This sort of thing is fine when done sparingly but it seems a bit wearing here. For instance in "Battle of Britain and Second World War" we go from 1939 to 1937 to 1943 to 1940 to 2008 to 1940 to 2010, all within the first four paragraphs. I think generally (not necessarily exclusively) keeping to a more conventional chronological narrative will work better.
  • Referencing: The "Bibliography" looks like it should be labelled "Further reading" -- I can't see any citations to those books. The citations themselves are heavy going too, be better to create a "References" section where you list your full book titles once, and then cite them in short form, e.g. "Birtles 2010, p. 22" or something similar.

Time for another breather, be back again as/when things are modified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. Would the style of the reference section in the Avro Vulcan article be worth copying for this one? Harrison49 (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That style should be okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the reference style and changed most of the history section to run in chronological order. I've kept the paragraph in the later civil and military use about accidental landings together as the stories of the two 707s fit quite nicely. How does this look? Harrison49 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your efforts responding to these comments. Reckon it flows better now. I've made a few minor mods and also alternated the images to mix things up a bit and reduce stacking on wider screens -- let me know if I've mucked up anything. Last thing I want to check is the references themselves and if they look okay to me I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good, thanks a lot. Harrison49 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Had a quick check of references and they seem okay to me so I'm done, good work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A few captions have unnecessary trailing periods; use of the insignia in the infobox seems decorative and therefore fails the NFCC; intrigued as to whether a free alternative might exist to RAF_Northolt_aerial_view_1917.jpg. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at the article. I've removed the full stops you've mentioned. The inclusion of the Royal Air Force ensign in the infobox is in line with other RAF articles to aid identification, and similar practice is carried out in US Air Force base articles as an example. I'm unsure if a free alternative of the 1917 aerial photograph does exist but if one is available, I'd be pleased to see it included. Harrison49 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not an image expert, but isn't it possible that this image (the 1917 aerial photograph) is actually in the public domain? The description page says that it is subject to Crown Copyright, which implies to me that it is British government photograph. Wouldn't it then be more appropriate to tag it with {{PD-BritishGov}}, which states that images which are created by the UK government before 1 June 1957 are in the public domain? Given that it appears to have been taken in 1917, would that not mean that this actually is a public domain image? I'm not sure of this, though, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustralianRupert (talk • contribs) May 12, 2011 Comments:
    • in the Later civil and military use section, this doesn't seem correct to me: "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) aircrew killed during the Battle of Britain" - during the Second World War, Australian and New Zealand aircrew that participated in the Battle of Britain would have either been in the RAF, RAAF or RNZAF. The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps was a First World War formation, the abbreviation of which has later been used colloquially to generically describe military personnel from those nations. Using it in this way is probably confusing to readers, particularly if they click on the link. I would suggest just saying "British, Polish, Australian and New Zealand aircrew..." (and leave off the ANZAC);
      • Supported above, but I agree with AR that this colloquialism should be changed lest it confuse. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • for consistency, shouldn't the works in the Further reading section be arranged "Surname, first name"? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • ANZAC was how this was presented in the A History of Royal Air Force Northolt book, though I agree it was confusing so I'll make the change. The aerial photograph is from the same book which is covered under Crown copyright so I played it safe with the image and uploaded it under the same licence. A specific photo credit is not given in the book so it is to be presumed it was created by the British government and can be tagged as being in the public domain. If this would definitely be the correct licence then I'll be more than happy to change that too. Also, I'm sorry for the oversight on the Further reading section. Thank you to everyone for your reviews and suggestions. Harrison49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm fairly sure that the image would be PD-BritishGov, but does anyone know a FAC image guru who can confirm this or otherwise? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Update on the image: I asked at the Media Copyrights page and was told the {{PD-BritishGov}} was the correct licence to use. I have replaced the non-free licences for the image with that one. Harrison49 (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the first sentence of the Battle of Britain section, I suggest adding a clause "during the Second World War" to introduce the reason why RAF and Polish squadrons were defending the UK;
    • this sentence seems like it is missing something: "The aircraft used to fly him to meetings with other Allied leaders". -- "was used" ??
    • I'm not sure what this sentence means. Is it missing something? "The much larger civilian airport at Heathrow though its operations became constrained by its proximity to the new facility". AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for spotting those, I've corrected them in the ways you've suggested. Harrison49 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is solid. from Cryptic C62, the prognosticating octopus:

  • "Northolt pre-dates the establishment of the Royal Air Force by almost three years." This is indeed a fun factoid, but it is sadly uninformative without giving the actual years that are relevant here.
  • I don't understand why the second paragraph of the lead is not written in chronological order.
  • Is there a difference between "civilian flights" and "civil flights"?
  • "RAF squadrons including No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF are based at RAF Northolt whilst its location close to the A40 road link with central London has made the station popular with business people and politicians." This is what happens when you take two completely unrelated facts and try to bash them together into a sentence. I suggest dropping the "whilst" and splitting this into two sentences.
  • I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not there should be an In popular culture section, but if you are going to include it, it should be mentioned in the lead.
  • Question that should be answered in the lead: how big is this place? I would be happy with either a measure of area or the mileage of runway.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I've added in the date the aerodrome opened and a mention of film productions. I've also changed the paragraph to read in date order, replaced mentions of "civil" with "civilian" and made a change to the sentence you mention. The length of the runway is in the infobox but I'm not sure if it would fit in the lead. Harrison49 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting it at the end of the first paragraph? That paragraph seems to be dedicated to numerical / bare-bones facts. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this in. How does it look? Harrison49 (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the GA reviewer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image question. Above, Jarry1250 says: "use of the insignia in the infobox seems decorative and therefore fails the NFCC". Harrison replies: "The inclusion of the Royal Air Force ensign in the infobox is in line with other RAF articles to aid identification, and similar practice is carried out in US Air Force base articles as an example." Could we get a couple of outside opinions on this NFCC issue please? - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Drive-by reply after noticing Dan's appeal at WT:MILHIST) I would say that meets the NFCC, becuase it's being used for identification purposes, which we allow without question in articles on companies and organisations, for example. However, File:Northolt-600.jpg is too big to comply with NFCC 3b and should be reduced and tagged with {{non-free reduced}} so the old version can be deleted. I assume that's the one at issue, since the RAF flag itself appears to be user-made and properly licensed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I've reduced the crest image to 125px. Harrison49 (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, everyone happy? - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was a spotcheck for WP:V and close paraphrasing done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

  • " the station houses No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF, No. 600 Squadron (Royal Auxiliary Air Force), 621 EOD Squadron RLC (part of 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment) and the Royal Logistic Corps.[2]" - ref 2 supports The Royal Squadron but not the rest of this sentence
  • "Civilian flights ceased when the central area at Heathrow opened in 1954 with Northolt reverting to sole military use in May that year" - don't see this in the cited source
  • "Thirty Allied airmen including servicemen from Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, New Zealand, Poland and the United Kingdom were killed flying from RAF Northolt during the Battle of Britain, of whom ten were Polish." - first part not in source, source gives only 5 Polish airmen from Northolt KIA
  • "By 1952 the airfield was the busiest in Europe, with a total of 50,000 air movements per annum" vs "during 1952, Northolt was the busiest airfield in Europe, handling an annual total of 50,000 air movements" in source

Checked 5 web sources, found above issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking. I have corrected the references and changed the sentence relating to your second point. Harrison49 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Nikkimaria found issues of close paraphrasing and text unsupported by citations on a spotcheck, I would like additional review for same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have the changes I have made related to the spotcheck made an improvement? Harrison49 (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked another 6 or 7 sources. I didn't find any issues with close paraphrasing, but The headquarters of the London and South East Region (LaSER) of the Air Training Corps is also located at RAF Northolt doesn't appear to be in the given source. I don't have time to check all the web sources atm. I might be able to in the week if you think it's necessary, Sandy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful feedback, HJ; since you also found info not supported by the cited source, more checking might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow doubt there'll be a queue of volunteers to mcheck the rest of them! I'll get to it... probably tomorrow (Monday) or Tuesday. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you HJ Mitchell. To make it clearer, I've replaced "London and South East Region (LaSER)" with "14F (Northolt) Squadron". Harrison49 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the air cadet squadron has now been removed by MilborneOne. Harrison49 (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've checked all the remaining online sources and found the following issues. It was better than I was expecting, given that two spotchecks reveled issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following the relocation of the British Forces Post Office and Defence Courier Service from Mill Hill,—source doens't mention Defence Courier Service
  • First paragraph of RAF Northolt#Project MoDEL redevelopment: only Bentley Priory and the Air Historical Branch are mentioned in source. Redevelopment (last sentence of the paragraph) checks out.
  • Other airlines including Aer Lingus, Alitalia, Scandinavian Airlines System and Swissair used the airfield for scheduled services across Europe doesn't seem to be in the source (add: Aer Lingus is supported in the next online ref)
  • He became regarded as an ace of the sky and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) after downing six German aircraft, before being shot down and killed on September 27, 1940 over Borough Green in Kent. (source) Paszkiewicz became a flying ace and received the Distinguished Flying Cross after shooting down six aircraft, before he himself was shot down and killed on 27 September 1940, over Borough Green in Kent. (article) That's almost verbatim.
Thank you for checking it through. I'm sorry about the mistake with references and have replaced some and added others. What happened was I included several facts in a paragraph or sentence with a reference only covering one or two. Hopefully these problems have now been addressed. I have also rewritten the sentences on Ludwik Witold Paszkiewicz, hopefully this is an improvment. Harrison49 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise, they're easy mistakes to make. Btw, Defence Courier Service redirects to Defense Courier Service, which about an American unit. Is that the unit you mean or is there a British unit with the same name (that spells its name properly ;) )? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be the British version. I'll remove the link. Harrison49 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't see any remaining issues. The problems I brought up above have all been fixed and I read through the article while I was checking the sourcing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 30 May 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_Northolt/archive1&oldid=1078805149"