Talk:Hugh Trenchard, 1st Viscount Trenchard/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There should be no new information (and therefore no refs) in the lead; instead, the lead should be simply a summary of the entire article. Addressed. Greenshed (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
   • There are a lot of short paragraphs in many of the sections. Paragraphs that consist of only one or two sentences (and in many cases three) should be combined with other paragraphs unless there is a very compelling reason to leave them separate. Probably addressed - further suggestions welcome. Greenshed (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
   • The term "Bibliography" is generally reserved for use as a heading for a list that contains works written by the subject of the article. Would it be possible to rename this section "References"? Addressed. Greenshed (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
   • Due to these MOS issues and the referencing issues below, I have not completed a thorough evaluation of the prose. This will be done on a second run through of the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Book references should be consistent - have all of them in short format, or none of them. In this case, I would suggest going with all, since having the Boyle reference information repeated 100 times or so in the notes would get really old really quick.

   • Because the format of the refs you already have is linked author and publication date, page number(s), this is probably what you should stick with. The big thing is consistency. Other ways to do it include author, title, page number or author, date if more than one book for the author, page range. I would say stick with what you already have, just make sure everything is consistent.

   • Are you saying that even in the case when a source is not cheifly about Trenchard and is referenced only once or twice, if using the short footnote style (which we both favour for Boyle), it should appear in the "References" section as a full length reference? I am not trying to be contentious - it's just that I have always found the layout options in this vital aspect of the WP hard to understand. Greenshed (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • I know that some of these things can get a little complicated. The basic issue here is consistency. If you want to have one book using the short ref/full ref format, you need to have all of them that way. Same for journal refs, web refs, etc. Wikipedia doesn't really care how you do your references, they just want them to be consistent within each article. Does this help? Dana boomer (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Er... so is that a "yes" or a "no" to my preceeding question? (I don't mind converting all the refs to that style if that's the way to go but would hate to spend lots of time on formatting only to undo it). I have tried to do ref 141 as an example of what I mean - however the cite web template does not seem to support the ref parameter in the way that the cite book template does.Greenshed (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Fixed the last point with cite tags. Essentially, my remaining question is "is it ok to have every ref like 141"? Greenshed (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Whoops, hold up a second, I guess I complicated the subject by bringing up web refs. OK, how's this: Your web/journal refs are fine as is (well, not 141, but everything else). The book refs are what I'm concerned about. They should all be short format, like the Boyle ref. More or less confusing?

   • Slightly less confusing but I'm not there yet. Am I right in saying that all book footnotes must be converted to short refs with a corresponding entry in the References section (even if the book is not really about Trenchard and just mentions him once or twice - eg ref 95 Pelling) and that no web refs should be converted to short refs with corresponding entries in the References section even if they are wholly about Trenchard (eg. 11 ff Barrass)? Greenshed (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Precisely. The "References" section is not there to make a list of all of the works that are purely about the article's subject. It is there to make it easier to read the "Notes" section when you have a bunch of notes from the same book, e.g. Boyle. However, due to WP's insistence on consistency throughout your footnoting, if you have one book that is split between the notes and the references, all of the books must be split between the notes and the references. Dana boomer (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   • As you can see I am working on implementing this. I am not likely to get much time between now and Wednesday evening when I will carry on. I feel bound to say that "WP's insistence on consistency" leads to poor results in this case, although I do appreciate the need to follow the "house style". We have ended up with a situation which neither has the consistency of short refs throughout nor the logic of only using short refs for works which are cited multiple times. The distinction between a book and a web resource is already something of a nice one and is likely to become increasingly blurred in the future. Greenshed (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1. • Page ranges should be shown with an endash (–), not a "to" Addressed. Greenshed (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
   • All web references need to have access dates (see #101), and they need to be formatted the same way (see #131). Addressed. Greenshed (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
   • All web references need to have a publisher; several have works info but no publisher (see #135, 136) Generally Addressed. However in the case of what is currently ref no. 135 I don't believe that there is a publisher per se. Also Template:Cite web lists the publisher as an optional parameter. Greenshed (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

   • For #135, both the author and the publisher would be Darryl Lundy, per information on the website's home page. While publisher is an optional parameter in the citeweb template, it is required for GA status, and especially for FA status, if you plan to take the article that far. Addressed Greenshed (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Refs are needed in the following areas of the article:

   • Early life section: paragraph 3, the last sentence of paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 Addressed Greenshed (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
   • Commander of the RFC section: the last sentence of paragraph 1 (which, to be honest, I'm not even sure is relevant) Addressed. Greenshed (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
   • Commander of the IAF section: the last sentence of paragraph 1 'Addressed Greenshed (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
   • Later years as Chief of the Air Staff: the last sentence of the last paragraph Addressed Greenshed (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
   • Metropolitan Police Commissioner: the last sentence of the fourth paragraph Addressed. Greenshed (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
   • Legacy: paragraph 1 Addressed.Greenshed (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Is there a reason that there are some books in the references section that are not used for in-line cites, for example the Allen book? Also, what are the number ranges given for the last two refs. If these are page numbers, they should be given in the in-line short cites, not the full cites.

   • The Allen book is only partly about Trenchard and is more about the development of the RAF in the early / mid 20th century from a fighter pilot's perspective. In my view, it offers only a few additional points of interest to this article beyond what Boyle provides in his definative biography on Trenchard. I can add a little to the "Legacy" section if that would meet your concern. Greenshed (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
   • Lyall and Probert's books both contain information on many military leaders. The page ranges in those books refer to the sections relevent to Trenchard. In-line citations generally have narrower scope. Do you want the (useful) page ranges deleted? Greenshed (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • OK, here's my basic thought process: Books that are in the references section are generally explicitly used as references, in other words, they're connected to in-line cites. Books on the topic that are not used as references for the article are generally listed in a "Further reading" section. They might not be used in the article for a variety of reasons - too much (or too little detail) on the subject, information that is already covered by other references, or trivia that doesn't really belong in the article but is still interesting. In the case of a "Further reading" section, the relevant page ranges can be kept. In a "References" section, the page ranges should be in the in-line cites, and the page(s) should be where that exact tidbit of information can be found. Does this make sense?

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a nice article. There are some issues with referencing and MOS that I would like addressed, and so I am putting this article on hold. When this is complete (or almost complete) I will do a thorough evaluation of the prose to pick up any issues I see there. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have answered your question regarding the books in the above section, as well as adding another quibble I found in the references. Thank you for informing me of your upcoming hiatus, I will not take any action towards the article while you are gone. Because you are working on the article, I will probably begin the review of the prose while you are gone, and have some suggestions for you upon your return. Dana boomer (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Prose

I'm currently working on a run-through of the prose, and will list the issues I find below. I'm not listing them above because it's already getting rather crowded and making another list of issues within the existing list would probably lead to things being missed. I've done a copy-edit of the entire article, fixing grammar, punctuation, etc. If you don't like something I've changed, feel free to re-work my edit! So, here goes on the things that I didn't change, but had questions on:

• Again, I'm going to harp on the short paragraphs. The entire article is sprinkled with them, and they make things look...choppy.
  • Probably addressed - further suggestions welcome. Greenshed (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Early life:
  • Third paragraph: what is a "cramming school"? Linked to Cram school (perhaps this shorter form is the Indian English version of cramming school?) for those who wish to know more. I think that most educated British readers would be familiar with the term "cramming school" or "crammer". Greenshed (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Just remember that you can't always assume that your reader is an educated Brit. Although probably the ideal reader, they are most likely in the minority in reality!
  • Last paragraph: "finally scraped a pass", rather un-encyclopedic, although obviously true! Reworded (not obvious that he only just passed though). Greenshed (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I guess I was meaning the "finally" part was obvious *grin*.
  • You refer to him as "Hugh" through most of this section, although later in the section (and for the rest of the article) you refer to him as "Trenchard". The last name is more encyclopedic, and for consistency's sake (I know, again with the consistency!) should be used throughout the article. Noted. Greenshed (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Early military career:
  • India subsection, last paragraph, "after Trenchard had rescued a rifle-shooting contest from disaster." What? Please either expand on this or cut it. Addressed? I'm not sure what you're after here. I have briefly clarified what the source of the difficulty was (will that do?). By itself the event was a mere footnote in Trenchard's life. However, to cut it would eliminate the reason why Elles granted Trenchard his extraordinary request. If his request had not been granted, Trenchard would have been stuck in India, not been shot and his life may well have turned out somewhat differently. Greenshed (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, this works. I was trying to figure out why it was possible for a rifle-shooting contest to be a disaster. The "poorly planned" wording addition helps!
• Medical treatment and convalescence:
  • First paragraph: "half-paralysed in his legs" What does this mean? Was he paralyzed in one leg, or could he move muscles in his upper legs, or something different?
    • Boyle writes "half-paralysed from the waist downwards", Probert writes "partly paralysed", Lyall writes "partly paralysed in the legs by some unidentifed spinal damage". I've gone for "suffering from partial paralysis below the waist". Greenshed (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, this works for me.
  • Third paragraph: "that his spine was jolted back into line," I thought that doctors thought the bullet had grazed his spine? Or was it just out of alignment? It seems weird (although I'm not a doctor) that a thrown-out back could cause paralysis.
    • Orange writes "a heavy fall shook his spine back into place, enabling him to walk freely once more", Boyle writes "something must have clicked back into place; he had cured himself by violence", Lyall writes "crashing on the Cresta Run - somehow readjusted his spine so that he could walk unaided again". As regards what the doctors thought, I think that it is safe so say that medical opinion was uncertain as to the particulars of Trenchard's condition. As "readjusted" is the most general of the terms used and given the uncertainty, it seems better to use this in perference to "jolted". Greenshed (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Plus, I've changed "grazed his spine" to "damaged his spine" - also slightly more general (given the uncertainty).Greenshed (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Third paragraph: "Freshman and Novices' Cups" of what? St. Moritz Tobogganing Club. Greenshed (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• England and Ireland:
  • "took to involving himself in the details of other officers' duties which created some friction." Could this be expanded? This section is a little short anyway. Addressed. attempted to re-organize his fellow officers' administrative procedures. Greenshed (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• World War I:
  • Officer Commanding the Military Wing subsection: last paragraph - why was command taken away from Trenchard? Because of the re-org. Greenshed (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Commander of the First Wing subsection: last paragraph - you switch between talking about multiple offensives and an offensive (singular). Please clarify. Addressed. There were two. Greenshed (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Commander of the Royal Flying Corps subsection: next to last paragraph, you say "resulted in the destruction of the Flying Corps." Is "destruction" meaning that they were almost wiped out by German fighters, or that they were going to be disbanded by the government, or that they couldn't be replaced fast enough and so were almost destroyed by attrition (which I guess is a rewording of the first possibility)?
    • I have made a minor rewording - hopefully you will feel that this conveys the sense of destruction by attrition. Greenshed (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Between the Wars:
  • Establishing the RAF and the struggle for survival subsection: first paragraph - why "around 28 squadrons"? Were they not sure?
    • It seems highly unlikely that the Air Ministry did not know how many sqns exisited at the end of the demob. However, I recollect reading a number other than 28 somewhere (I suppose I need to find this source). It may be that there ended up being a difference between the planned reductions and the actual reductions achieved. I will see what I can find. Greenshed (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Establishing the RAF and the struggle for survival subsection: second paragraph - "scheme which provided the RAF with specialist groundcrew for over 70 years." Is it not in operation today?
    • No, it's not. How would you suggest that this is clarified? Greenshed (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
      • maybe something along the lines of "Later, Trenchard inaugurated the Aircraft Apprentice program which provided the RAF with specialist groundcrew between 1920 and 1990, when it was disbanded due to [whatever]". It's your call, though.
        • Well I don't exactly know why it was disbanded (possibly because the idea of apprenticeships was see as old-fashioned in the early 1990s), but the link to Aircraft Apprentice gives further details. At any rate I don't see that the reason why the scheme was discontinued, nearly 40 years after Trenchard's death, has very much to do with Trenchard himself (such details would be better in the Aircraft Apprentice article). The only reason I put the "over 70 years" comment in this article was to show the decision of Trenchard to set up the scheme had a very long-lasting effect. My feeling is that it is ok as it is but I could be persuaded to go for "...provided the RAF with specialist groundcrew from 1920 to 1993.". Greenshed (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Your reasoning has persuaded me. I can now see why you have it the way it is, and it's fine to leave it that way.

I have finished the copyedit of the article. I've found a couple more prose issues, which I've added to the list above. When these items are completed (as well as the remaining ones in the main review above), this article will easily pass for GA. Dana boomer (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you have put into this. Sadly I am a bid short of Wikipedia editing time over the next few days but I might be able to find a few hours at the weekend. I intend to keep editing every day, even if only briefly, in order to work through your points. Is there a deadline for "on hold" articles? Greenshed (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken another look through the article, and everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Thank you for the great work you've done over the past couple of weeks, and congrats! Dana boomer (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)