Talk:Eric Lock

2.5 in November 1940?

I can't find a reasonable explanation for the half kill. What does it mean?

In the table, we have "November 1940 Royal Air Force Spitfire 2.5 * unknown". According to the table, that would be kill number 20 (a Bf109 shot down in October according to the text?!?) and then 1.5 more. The next line in the table referes to the incident in the section "Shot down".

So what's true here, and what's the 0.5 about?--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking a general question about how people receive credit for a half-kill? I don't know the specifics of this instance but basically it means you and somebody else were credited with shooting down the same enemy aircraft. There have been people ending up with quarter scores, like Australia's Bobby Gibbes who finished the war with a score of 10.25, which implies he was one of four people to have shared in the same kill. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Is that information present in en.wikipedia? If so, can we find a nice way of linking to it?

There is another issue in my question, though: There seems to be an inconsistency between the count of the kills in the article and in the table, as e.g. kill number 20 isn't the same.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Top scorer in Battle of Britain

Page 402 of Aces High- C.Shores & C.Williams (Grub Street , 1994) specifically lists all of Lock's claims, derived from the archived RAF combat reports (forms 540 and 541), logbooks and squadron summaries. If my maths doesn't fail me his claims within the accepted period of the Battle of Britain i.e -10th July 1940 to 31st october 1940- is in fact 21.

There is no other pilot within this acknowledged reference work with more claims in this period - I've checked. Irrespective of what has been published in other accounts, this is a suitably referenced source consistent with Wikipedia requirements , and therefore I respectfully request that the claim total revised and submitted into the entry. Thanks Harryurz (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but such a score significantly rewrites the history of an important statistic in the battle and must be researched and referenced very carefully. To suddenly elevate Eric Lock to the highest scoring slot 68 years after the event must not be taken lightly. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

With due respect I'm not sure I understand your reasoning; one can't 're-write a statistic'. Lock -according to information logged in the 1940 battles themselves, and published by Shores in 1994- was always the top-claiming pilot of Fighter Command in the specified period, even if it was not widely known. He hasn't been suddenly elevated though any desire on a historian's behalf to compromise accepted history, but to put the actual truth of the matter into the public domain. In my own humble opinion Eric Lock's combat record deserves full recognition in light of his acheivements, which ( like many combat pilots) have been forgotten for too long. Hope that answers your question, thanksHarryurz (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me Harryurz. Nobody will be more delighted than me if we can effectively make this change. I wrote this original article and researched the basic material and references. While living in Eric Lock Road, Bayston Hill back in the 1980s I visited Lock's elderly frail sister for tea and chats many times and looked at the original documents the family holds. I think he was a smashing little chap and will dance with joy if your figures can be confirmed and referenced properly. A large number of RAF histories will have to be amended as a result. No, all I was saying is we have to be absolutely sure that the 1994 figures Shores quote are accurate - that is crucial. My concerns were not for Lock's memory, they were for the accuracy and stature of Wikipedia.21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough; as far as Shores is concerned I've also reviewed the Aces High Volume 2 'supplemental', published in 1999; Lock's claim list is validated (and his date of birth given as 19 April 1919.) I'm not sure where we go from here as far as further validation is concerned, as the RAF form 540s and 541s listed remain the primary source, archived at the MOD, and are Shores' reference material anyway. I agree alot of B Of B accounts seems to draw reference from each other and list Frantisek as the top scorer, ( tho one or two go with Lacey). I suspect the first account to list Frantisek calculated the claim tallies from othr sources, and this has been taken as 'gospel' ever since. It would be interesting to see when and who/where the older traditionally accepted listing came from. Incidentally i've also reviewed all the RAF top scorer's totals in the B Of B from the same volumes and am thinking about posting on the B of B article, although it will probably cause an edit war!! Harryurz (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eric Lock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 16:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments by MisterBee1966

Lead

• "Lock had his first taste of flying as a teenage but showed little further interest in flying until 1939" I find this a bit too colloquial! Maybe start with where and when he was born.
• "He joined the RAF": first use of RAF should not be abbreviated
• "offensive sweeps": is this a well known term for a offensive fighter patrols? Maybe link to combat air patrol?
• nickname "Sawn Off Lockie": is not cited

Battle of Britain

• link first use of Luftwaffe
• "Lock flew as Red 2" is that a position or his aircraft?
• "Lock followed it down. He quickly realised his mistake but it was too late." Why was it a mistake. Too colloquail I think

Last battles and death

• "well-known RAF aces" well known to whom? Could be seen as POV

List of victories

• (JG 54 — or Fighter Wing 54) and others: strike the or

Ok done. Dapi89 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Early life and career

• last sentence, 2nd paragraph not referenced

Last battles and death

• 2nd paragraph not referenced

Channel Front

• 1st paragraph not referenced

Prestfelde

Prestfelde is not a "public school" in any sense of the word, nor would it claim to be. It is an independent private preparatory school. So I have deleted the reference to "public". Poshseagull (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Johann Schmid

The claim made by this pilot was around 7 hours from Lock's loss. Schmid did not shoot him down. Dapi89 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Copious Amounts of Errors and Generalizations

I've deleted all your edits. They show that you really doesn't seem to understand how to write a Wikipedia article or what is expected of one. You've replaced a lot of sourced material with your own assertions and opinions.

Keep your opinions to yourself please, and don't take liberties with other material. Dapi89 (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

And before you ask, you cannot use your own work in the article. Dapi89 (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Call it what you like. Unsourced, and terribly laid out. These are the facts. Where do you intend to find reliable and published sources on Lock?

You are not a source, so as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there are no errors here. We don't take people's word for information.

Perhaps you should offer some decent secondary information for these claims, or else further discussion is pointless. Dapi89 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This talk page is not a place for you to moan about wikipedia. Cite your sources or go away. Dapi89 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Cite sources. Dapi89 (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Detail switch desirable

There appears to be more detailed information given about his earlier life (eg his educational career and details of his early career in the RAFVR) in the introductory summary section than in the subsequent sections on his early life, where such detail would be more appropriately positioned. Might the paragraphs read better if their position were judiciously reversed?Cloptonson (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have copied some of those details into the Early Life and Second World War sections but leave it to those who may have worked on this page more than I have to have chance to condense the introductory section tidily.Cloptonson (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Guinea Pig Club

I've added Category:Members of the Guinea Pig Club to this article, as Lock's name appears on the "Roll of Honour" memorial to members of the club at the Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead – available here. However, there's nothing in the article to say that he was ever at East Grinstead, which was normally a basic requirement for membership of the club. He was operated on at the Royal Masonic Hospital by Archibald McIndoe, whose main base was East Grinstead. Was Lock in fact (like Richard Hillary) transferred to East Grinstead, so that McIndoe could keep a closer eye on him? Or was he perhaps given some sort of honorary membership of the club by virtue of having been one of McIndoe's patients, despite never having been at East Grinstead? GrindtXX (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)