Talk:Battle of Britain Day

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Willy turner (talk | contribs) at 12:23, 30 November 2017 (Adding importance ratings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleBattle of Britain Day has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 23, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Untitled

Although some may disagree the Battle of Britain Day, 15 September 1940, is still an important commemoration for many British, Commonwealth and other nationals and their descendants, who participated in or witnessed these events. It was also an interesting, often confused and hectic day of air-to-air combat, which is worth describing in its own right. For example, the debates about the efficacy of Bader's "Big Wing" really started because of this day. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people today have even heard of "Battle of Britain Day". I have lived in the UK all my life and had never heard of it until I found this article. (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:847A:1847:3221:E76E (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Britain Day/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I was pleased to see this article up for GA status. It's nearly ready, but there are a few small things that need fixing first.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    The quality of prose is good.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The lead section is of a good length and provides a good summary of the subject. There are disambiguation links for Berwick, Cormeilles, Preston and Shoreham which need to be addressed. The Preliminary engagements section should be expanded or the small paragraphs joined together to avoid reading through it becoming choppy.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    References are used well.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Citations are correctly placed and used well.
    C. No original research:
    The article does not appear to contain original research.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    The article is very broad and covers the subject very well.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article is written from a neutral point of view.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    It does not appear to be subject to edit wars.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Most images are freely available on Commons; two are pre-1957 British Government images made available under public domain rules.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Captions are good and informative.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold - nearly there though. Harrison49 (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Passed - maybe Battle of Britain could be the next one to be worked on? Harrison49 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is one can of worms! The BoB article is around 10 years old and has been the subject of running debates, battles/wars etc. It has calmed down over the last few months, but I think it will be too difficult to get to GA. Its just one of those articles Dapi89 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Congrats on getting this through to GA. B of B page? As Buddy Holly once sang "That'll be the day..." Minorhistorian (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messerschmitt Bf 110 units had 60% of crews against unauthorised strength

Is this vandalism or does "unauthorised strength" have some specialised meaning?©Geni (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should been authorised not "un"... thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBC and legion sources

An article populated by good, and in same cases, expert sources should not be using BBC and British legion websites. The charge that the RAF in it's entirety was engaged in this battle is absurd, and not supported by the sources that matter. Coastal Command and Bomber Command played no part. And it was not a decisive air battle. 77.101.14.149 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Britain_Day&oldid=812880818"