Talk:Supermarine Spitfire operational history

message: In response to a request for assessment on the WP:AVIATION project assessment page, I submit the following, in addition to my edits to the project banner checklist, as a courtesy peer review. --Born2flie (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Peer review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#*Futher information template used at the beginning should be incorporated into the See also section.
#*The introduction is stretched by creating lists (roles and locations) attempting to show a widespread use. Ultimately it looks like one paragraph split and stuffed with minutiae to look like two. An article that is 92kb long could realistically have an introduction that is 3 paragraphs long and truly summarize the article.
#*The intro contains phrases like, "such diverse roles," and, "carried out its various roles," where the first can simply be done away with and the second can be replaced by one word, "operated."
#*There is a stray number (135) and comma at the beginning of the last sentence of the first paragraph that does not seem to fit with the sentence.
#*Multiple single sentence paragraphs in the article. Some are just run-on sentences.
#*It is questionable whether some subheadings need to be used for a single paragraph. This seems more likely used to create the TOC as an index, artificially lengthening the TOC.
#*There is a link to the article on variants that isn't clear that that is what the link is to: Spitfire Is, IIs, Vas, and Vbs, the same article is linked in reference to a term, "Cottonised".
#*Other articles are linked to more than once.
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#*The note for "Spitfire complex" appears to substantiate the text, only to further the question as to whether or not the statement is fact.
#*The Further reading listings for this article are included within the citations, so they are not further reading and are part of the bibliography. Further reading listings are applicable materials not used for creating the article that provide more information on the subject.
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#*Article seems to peter out when it comes to covering the post-war history.
#*You seem to stumble onto the engine development throughout the history. 
#*One country's section lists quantities of variants employed while others do not.
#*There doesn't seem to be consistency about how information is presented. It starts out as if by timeline, but then tries to go into roles. Within the sections on roles, it attempts to contain the timeline as pertains to that role. Certain parts aren't even clear where in the timeline they fall; the night fighter section quotes day and month but there is no year within the section at all.
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: It is possible there is a subtle bias, but I am not going to spend enough time here to substantiate whether that is true or not.
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: per the history and the request for assessment.
#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): 
#:: Pictures seem to be randomly placed. There are quite a few sections with no pictures.
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: These are some of the items I've found using this checklist. I do not think it is ready to progress beyond the C-Class that the WPAVIATION banner automatically assigns to it, based on the B-Class checklist. --Born2flie (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *A very fair, thoughtful and useful review. The TOC is on the long side. I have removed the hatnotes as they are covered by the 'Spitfire articles' navbox at the bottom and also added the aviation infobox (which also allows for a bigger photo). Maybe a little too much technical info on the German counterparts that could be thinned out. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *A good quick response, and much appreciated. A fair assessment and a clear set of guidelines is just what the article needs. Jolly good show! Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An assessment 

message: User:Kurfurst - see and desist.
Today you removed this information, despite it having two secondary sources. You also lied on the edit summary citing removal because they were "primary sources" - STOP IT. Dapi89 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: An administrator already commented on the use of images, see: 
*There's no legal threat here at all. The use of references such as the one removed here is not appropriate; the reference should point to the original document in the archive, not to a photograph of unclear provenence on some random amateur website. CIreland (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it, whilst CI's opinion is not definitive and his admin status irrelevant, the point he makes the reference should point to the original document in the archive, not to a photograph of unclear provenence on some random amateur website is a good one. The reference is (should be) to the memo in the archives. The photo is merely proof that the reference exists and of what it says. That would in turn appear to imply that removal of the reference in its entirety is wrong: I think it should be replaced with "Air Ministry minutes on supply of 100 Octane fuel, 18 May 1940. and presumably some note as to the current location of those minutes" William M. Connolley (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been done. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice for use of copyrighted images for the future 

message: I know Galland and Molders tested a couple at the end of 1940, but it wasnt until 1941 that the F was in 'service'.
Someone has quoted that the 109F was 'in service' in 1940 Xiolablu3 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The production of the 109F-1 started in July 1940 (some 180 built IIRC). You are right that it certainly saw any widespread service in 1940, but a small number (unfortunately, I can't say how many) of examples were flown by several pilots. It should be "limited service" or something along those lines. Cheers, KF Kurfürst (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  109F in 1940?? 

message: There has been lots of wrangling of late over whether direct comparisons are useful in aircraft articles (qv: Kawasaki Ki-61, Macchi C.202 etc. The concensus so far is that the use of such data in aircraft articles leads to too much dogfighting over the relative merits of aircraft types. In fairness to other editors and other articles I have reduced or eliminated the comparison peices in this article. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, mine is bigger than yours comparisions are not really needed, particularly in what is the operation history of the type. You cant really compare in detail every type that the Spitfire has fought against. Any such notable conflicts can just be mentioned as one liners in the relevant bits of the operational history if needed. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengthy comparisons 

message: As far as I know such a word does not exist; at least not until it appeared, completely uncited, in Wikictionary. No dictionary that I have seen lists photoreconnaissance as a word. Until proven otherwise photo-reconnaissance is the accepted form and no Wikictionary entry will convince me otherwise. Secondly, the section on late PR Spitfires is becoming a real mess, the citations are of a different (and untidy) format to the now accepted standard for aircraft articles and much of the recent editing has not been discussed. Massive overhaul pending. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: English (unlike German) does not allow compounding of words, so you are absolutely correct. The same goes for 'cooperation' which otherwise appears to be something to do with barrel-making.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.101 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photoreconnaissance? 

message: Would someone care to clear up the conflicting statements that have been edited into this section: does the cited source state that the Soviet air defences became too effective, or does it state that the Swedish State Minister ordered the missions to cease? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk  22:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nordenskiöld had ordered these flights on his own initiative with Erlander unaware of it, for which he was rebuked and the missions stopped. Have to get back on the source for that. BP OMowe (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish photo-recon Spitfires 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Supermarine Spitfire operational history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807230255/http://defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4616/history/story02.htm to http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/EDITIONS/4616/history/story02.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226034902/http://www.afterthebattle.com/ab-con1.html to http://www.afterthebattle.com/ab-con1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206042942/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Aircraft/Spitfire.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Aircraft/Spitfire.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304223524/http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/spitfire.html to http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/spitfire.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206042942/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Aircraft/Spitfire.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Aircraft/Spitfire.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061014145920/http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/Spitfire.cfm to http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/Spitfire.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706102018/http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/spitfiremkxvi.cfm to http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/spitfiremkxvi.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223102410/http://www.airrecce.co.uk/WW2/recce_ac/RAFAR.html to http://www.airrecce.co.uk/WW2/recce_ac/RAFAR.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)