Talk:R. J. Mitchell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The Supermarine Walrus was a flying boat, not a seaplane. The distinction between the two types being the means of water bouyancy. If the hull rests upon the sea surface then it is a flying boat - that is a boat hull with wings/engines etc. If the fuselage is held up by one or more floats (or pontoon) then it is a seaplane (sometimes floatplane). I note that the Wikipedia is split in agreeing if the general category is seaplane, with the subdivision being flying boats and floatplanes, or if flying boat and sea/floatplane are indeed separate. My point is that the article mentions both seaplane (especially the SB record breakers) and flying boats. The Walrus is the latter. Plus it was an amphibian... Which could be catapult launched... From a ship...LessHeard vanU 21:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


About the Type 317 Bomber[edit]

Does anyone have any information about this? I read about it in "The Guinness Book of Air Force Blunders" by Geoffrey Regan. He proposes that this cancelling this design in favour of the Short Stirling was a major blunder by the Air Ministry in WWII. --80.47.107.70 13:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time Supermarine had their hands full in developing the Spitfire, and it is unlikely in the circumstances of 1939-41 that they had any capacity that could be spared for a bomber that would with hindsight almost certainly have been eventually supplanted by the excellent Lancaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.75 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Supermarine Spitfire Protoype K5054 Unpainted.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Supermarine Spitfire Protoype K5054 Unpainted.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic tone missing[edit]

I find most of the "Personal Life" chapter inappropriate in tone or style for wikipedia.

For example: "recognition needs to be made" or "need to be recognised and duly acknowledged".

Also many 'facts' are more like POVs: "The Battle of Britain was won by a superior aircraft manned by superior pilots". Just reading the Battle of Britain wikipedia entry gives a much more complex view of the battle and makes straight forward statements like that very questionable.

Further the unattributed quote "If it wasn't for that invention, we may all be speaking in Germanic tongue right here, right now?" seems to POV and even more inappropriately it sounds like an English person expressing his/hers POV though Wikipedia is not supposed to be nationally biased.

And nothing seems to be attributed to known reliable sources here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.94.173.129 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the relevant text, it should have been spotted earlier. The rest of the article appears fairly neutral but there are odd NNPOV phrases that stand out ('Mitchell's genius' for instance). Perfectly fine if someone else said it but it is not sourced as are a few other details. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

I changed the "Bibliography" section to a "Works cited". Bibliography is sometimes used in biographies (although discouraged) as works or publications.
MOS:NOTES states: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications").
The "External links" seems to have grown (eight links) to a WP:link farm proportion. Possibly some of the links can be incorporated into the article or trimmed by someone more familiar with the subject. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Exceptions including WP:ELBURDEN, and ELPOINTS #3 indicate that a long list of links are not desired as contrary to policy.
The link to the R.J Mitchell primary school facebook page seems to be outside the scope of relevance and certainly mention is better served in the "Legacy" section. The link "An interview with Gordon Mitchell about his father (2005)" might also be considered as well as some others. Otr500 (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic links have now been removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bollocks vs. balls[edit]

This edit caught my eye. It changes a word in a cite-supported quotation. The supporting source cited is not verifiable online -- what may be a different issue of the cited book isn't previewable online in Google Books. I found an uncited source which is verifiable online here which supports the previous wording. I'm reluctant to follow this up with a revert citing the new source. I'm letting the edit stand for now and ignoring the uncertainty raised by the alternative source I found. I'm mentioning this here in case other editors want to follow up on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The article's unverifiable references have been edited out, I'm not in the process of ensuring the text as it exists has sufficient citations. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:R. J. Mitchell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one, comments to follow in due course. I note that this is a largish article, so I may break up the review into manageable chunks over a few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've been focussed on some other Wiki work and time has gotten away from me here; sorry for the delay in coming back to this. Some comments as follows:

Lead

  • FRAeS is given as a postnominal, but no mention of this in the article so technically uncited.
Note added. AM
  • Link Hanley High School, otherwise this section is in good order
Done. AM

Infobox

  • Write out CBE
Done. AM

Family and education

  • Needs to mention dob, otherwise technically it is uncited
  • Suggest breaking the sentence RE his father, at the point when he sets up a printing business. It is a pretty long otherwise.
Both sorted. AM

Career at Supermarine

  • ...and dates from 1916, when he was possibly undergoing a probationary period.: Earlier in this section, it states that he joined Supermarine in 1917.
  • He became chief designer in 1919,...: this is already inferred from the first sentence of this paragraph (he replaced the chief designer). Regardless this seems an incredibly rapid rise for someone so young; is there anything the sources that will allow you to draw this out?
  • at Olympia in 1920.: is there more context for the timing of this, particularly relative to the competition already mentioned?
  • The sentence regarding the organisation of the design office into two departments stands out in isolation. I wonder if it could somehow be integrated into the following sentence when the "design team", e.g. "...Mitchell's design team, which he had re-organised that year into separate drawing and technical offices,..."
  • Following the Air Ministry specification 5/36,: feels like some missing words here, suggest: "Following the issuance of Air Ministry specification 5/36,"
  • I don't know if it is a big deal for you, but I note the cites at the end of the first paragraph of the Sea Lion series (early 1920s) are not in sequential order.
  • At the end of 1927, he became...: Because the year is already used in the previous sentence suggest "At the end of the year, he became"
  • was that he remained as a designer: To avoid repetition of "remained", suggest "was that he stay as a designer"
  • Two Supermarine S.5 seaplanes were entered for the 1927 contest.: suggest mentioning here that the race was to be in Venice (and move link from existing mention of Venice).
  • invited Rolls-Royce Limited: suggest writing Limited as Ltd for consistency with how company names are treated in this article.
  • The victory won the contest outright for Britain.: I don't get this sentence as the previous sentence already says the S.6B won the Schnieder Trophy.
  • awarded the CBE: suggest writing out CBE in full.
  • Mitchell was proceeding on designing the Type 300: suggest "Mitchell was proceeding with the design of the Type 300"
  • Despite his illness, he travelled to Eastleigh...: there is no antecedence for him being ill at this time, suggest rewording to "Despite being ill, he travelled to Eastleigh"
  • "unparalleled expertise...": This starts off a quote, which should have a citation at its end. At present, the citation is at the end of the paragraph rather than the quote.
All done. AM

Illness and final years

  • "Harold Payn", just checking the spelling of the surname, it is very unusual. Are you sure it doesn't end with an e, i.e. Payne?
  • Link Vienna
Both done. AM

References

  • Generally look OK but assume the Mitchell author is unrelated to the subject?
Gordon Mitchell was his son; according to Pegram, the book Gordon wrote about his father was done with the assistance of a ghost writer. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little uncomfortable about the usage of this book given the "co-author"'s relationship to the subject but from my Googling, Tempus Publishing looks to be reliable plus the source itself is not heavily used, compared to Pegram. This eases my concerns somewhat but I think that this may get closer scrutiny if the intention is to take this to FAC. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't cite 94 be in the book section?
A surplus ref, so now removed. AM
  • The title styles are mixed; these should be made consistent
Sorted. AM
  • Cite 65 is missing an ampersand
Sorted. AM
  • Cite 99 is missing a pg no.
Ref replaced, as no page number available. AM

Other stuff

  • One dupe link, but that is to £ so I think OK in the circumstance
  • Image tags look OK or would otherwise clearly be public domain
Tags amended (a tricky process) AM

That's about it for me at this stage. Zawed (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for the above comments, now all addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the changes, so am passing this as GA as I believe that the article meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! One of his aircraft, Supermarine Sparrow, is also a GA nominated article (if you're interested). Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Amitchell125 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 16:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment These statements do not really reflect Mitchell's outstanding role as Chief Designer at Supermarine, or the fame and status achieved by the Spitfire (or at the time, the Schneider Trophy racers). He did more than help! Amitchell125 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe alt2 "... that R. J. Mitchell was the leading designer of the famous Supermarine Spitfire?" Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: ALT2 seems good enough to me. BorgQueen (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R._J._Mitchell&oldid=1202626573"