Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories[edit]

Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...

It is a complete and stable list, with complete reliable sourcing. The templates lead is the same used on the Featured List List of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories. I just went through it and cleaned it up some.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  • There are no categories
    • Sorry. Lost in the shuffle when I imported the newest iteration of this list. Now added.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There is an empty "Reference" section at the bottom of the article
  • I recommend to add a navigation box to the lists of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11-14, 15-19 and more than 20
    • And the purpose of this navigation box would be?Georgejdorner (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Well a reader should understand and easily navigate between all the aces of WW1. Otherwise it gives the impression that 5 was the limit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Their entry through Lists of World War I flying aces should inform them there were aces with scores greater than five, even if they have never heard of the Red Baron. Or am I missing something?Georgejdorner (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, they shouldn't have to go back to the main list to navigate within the sub-lists. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Oh, you are referring to cross-connecting them. Let me see what I can scare up.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
              • Yes, that's right. Look at any of MisterBee's lists on Knight's Cross recipients for one example of how to do it (they're all in an infobox field). You could also just use the bar across the top of the main list in your aces series. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
                • I am a bit embarrassed I did not think of the nav box at Lists of World War I flying aces. Transplanted it onto the top template, so that it shows on all victory lists. Thank you for your patience in nudging me into this improvement.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
                  • Thought I should mention that the nav box has been placed on the top template, and your suggestion has been rendered ninefold.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • wrong dash in "1914-1918" (among others), page ranges 209-210 (example)
    • Page ranges have been n-dashed per MOS. Date range dashes are in book titles.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • But the date ranges also require n-dashing. This is not consistent. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I see no reason to retitle a source—and in effect, that is your request.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Correct that is my request. The source "Above the Lines: The Aces and Fighter Units of the German Air Service, Naval Air Service and Flanders Marine Corps 1914-1918" should be referenced as "Above the Lines: The Aces and Fighter Units of the German Air Service, Naval Air Service and Flanders Marine Corps 1914–1918" because it includes a timeframe, which also governed by WP:MOSNUM#Dates and MOS:ENDASH. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
            • My personal ethics as a writer prevent me from changing another writer(s)' book title(s).Georgejdorner (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
              • Would you let someone else do it then, George? MOS always has the final say in basic formatting of titles in my experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
                • I do believe WP is over-reaching in this instance.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
                  • It is not a question of belief, and it is not for the reviewers to question guidelines here. If you feel that this is unjust policy then you should bring up your point where the referencing style guides are being discussed see Wikipedia:Citing sources. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
                    • It is indeed my belief that Wikipedia may have to deal with incensed publishers at some point. It is also my belief that I do not wish any part in that. And the typically cavalier fashion in which my beliefs were dismissed perfectly illustrate why I have quit wasting time trying to question the assessment department about its practices.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The table is initially sorted by last name. If you click the sort bottom it sorts by first. Sorting should be by last name. Use {{sortname}}
    • Hmm, that's interesting. Please give me time to check it out.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, I checked it out, but I fail to see a problem. Why shouldn't the list offer various sort options?Georgejdorner (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
      • The problem is that once a sort button is clicked, the reader has no means to restore the list to its original sequence at load time. I doubt that this will uphold the more stringent criteria we were asked to implement in a A-class review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I just finished fiddling and twiddling with all the column headers. Jeez, what a mess! I thought I could back up to start, but that throws me off the list.
        • Which leads me to wonder, What can sortability actually add to this list to enhance its usefulness to the reader?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
        • To put it another way, does this list really need sortability?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
          • The row and column software below seems to solve the problem.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe you need to make use of row and column scope in the table. See WP:ACCESS
    • No offense intended, but I have no idea what you are talking about. How will "row and column scope" (whatever they are) improve the list? Make it more usable for readers?Georgejdorner (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Check section Wikipedia:ACCESS#Tables. Screen readers require row-scope and column-scope to be set. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
        • This requirement is new to me. Please allow me time to check it out.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
          • I have never even used a screen reader for reading, much less encoded for it. Or encoded for anything for that matter. My usage of wiki-markup is not root and branch…my magpie style is pluck others' shiny leaves of wikicode and reuse 'em.
          • In summary, I am a technological troglodyte.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Sorry for asking but are you asking for help on this issue or are you saying please wave this requirement because I don't know how to implement it? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
              • More a cry of dismay at the totality of my ignorance…and a reminder that it will take me a while to get on top of this. I am searching for someplace to lift the needed code.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── try this

{|class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable" style="font-size:95%;"
|-
! scope="col" | Name
! scope="col" | Country
! scope="col" | Air service(s)
! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Victories
|-
! scope="row" | {{sortname|Albert|Achard}}
| {{flag|France}}
| [[Armée de l'Air (Part I: From birth to "Torch", 1909-1942)|''Aéronautique Militaire'']]
| 5<ref>''Over the Front: A Complete Record of the Fighter Aces and Units of the United States and French Air Services, 1914–1918''. p. 112.</ref>
|-

and so on MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

    • I am experimenting with the above in my Sandbox. Been plagued with intermittent internet outages, so am knocking off for present.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I removed the "nowiki" statements from your sandbox. I used them here so that you can read the syntax. They were not meant to be copied MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh, that explains a lot. Will I be able to add the "scope="row" | {{sortname" bit to the names on the present lists without fouling them up before I import the screen reader code from the sandbox?Georgejdorner (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Nemmine, fiddled with it until some understanding dawned upon me.
          • Okay, I now have a sample prototype in my sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Georgejdorner/sandbox. Works except it red links the non-notable aces, who should appear in black print.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Have a look at {{sortname}} again. You could make use of the nolink parameter. Example: {{sortname|George Benson|Anderson|nolink=1}} (do not copy the "nowiki" parameters) I made one change to your sandbox to show you how it works. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
              • Ah, the magic "no link" bit. Invaluable. Many thanks.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The last column doesn't have a header. Since all entries are 5, you could probably disable sorting for this column.
  • One more comment. The discussion I pointed to below also indicates that the lead required expansion. The length of your lead is also at the lower threshold. You could expand it by going into some statistics. The simplest thing to do would be to provide a statistic by country. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Any comments added will have to apply to all nine lists. The top template strikes again….Georgejdorner (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
      • You know, you could always abandon the template altogether and simply tailor the leads to each list. There's no reason they need to have identical introductions.
        • Offhand, I can't think of any necessity for variation in the leads, nor anything distinctive to write into new leads. And the only stat I have ever found was that the Russians believed 40% of all victories were by their aces. Given that I have been unable to discover any Russian standards for accrediting aerial victories, that stat seems ludicrously unreliable. I have added a bit about the criteria for inclusion on an aerial victory list.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, for instance, the top scorers' list should really mention the most famous of them (Richtofen, Goering, Rickenbacker, and so forth) and probably those who went on to further, notable military careers in WWII. I'm not familiar enough with this topic area to know whether any of the 5-victory aces are particularly famous to merit singling them out in the introduction, you'd be the better judge of that. But that's one way to customize the leads for each of the lists.
          • You could also break down the statistics - for instance, it seems from a quick glance at the list that the UK had far more aces than any of the other combatants (whereas Germany seems to be predominant in the top scorers' list). There is probably a reason for that discrepancy, and it is probably worth including if you can find out why. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
            • I can't break down non-existent statistics, and I refuse to generate some because that would be OR based on a "garbage in-garbage out" model. As shown by Aerial victory standards of World War I, victories were so differently defined from one air service to another as to make comparisons meaningless.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
              • The suggestion about adding statistics was motivated by the recommendation that you should expand the lead. We are not advising you to add statistics, but we are asking you to expand the lead. How you achieve this is up to your expertise on the subject. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
            • I also think it is more than a bit presumptuous of you to require me to rewrite nine leads to get one list through review.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
              • From a procedural point of view we are reviewing one list, not nine. If you think that the technical implications require you to rewrite nine, well than that is your choice. Vice versa, as you stated below yourself, the other lists would also benefit from the improvements made to this list. I think you want to be careful with how you phrase your comments. What you don't want to do is to give the impression that you are cherry picking, accepting all remarks which are easily implemented and refusing those which pose challenges of various natures. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
                • Yes, all nine lists benefit when the template(s) are corrected. Eradication of the template(s) equals erasure of the improvements. Conversely, wiping the template clean wipes out the lead to nine lists—not exactly a rational act.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
                • And, like anyone would, I make the corrections I can while I struggle to comprehend the others.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Section "Further reading" the reference Fighter Aces make use of the {{ASIN}} template MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I eliminated "Further reading" just prior to discovering this comment. I do not believe that listing a "fanboy" book that covers aces of all eras added to this article.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have seen criticism regarding the use of the dagger for indicating that the individual was killed in action. The arguments used were that the dagger too closely represents a Christian cross. Unless you know that the individual was of Christian belief this could cause an issue. Therefore the asterisk is often used as an alternative symbol. Something you may want to consider. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the heads-up. That symbol is now officially a sword.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Then do you plan on using it instead of the †? have a look at the {{KIA}} template it uses the  MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Didn't realize there was an actual sword symbol besides the cross. Thought I could relabel and go upon my way. At present, I am inclined to await complaints.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Besides, those who dislike it can edit to replace it in its hundreds of locations.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I still see a few issues to address before I can support the nomination. 1st, the lead is too short I gave you an example of how it could be expanded (adding statistics), 2nd the dashing in the citations are still wrong (requires ndashing in date ranges) and 3rd, the color coding for those killed in action has dissapeared (I thought it was there before). MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    • To add to that, some references have ill formated ISBN numbers (without the dashes) and some have missing authors. I suggest you use the {{Cite book}} template. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
      • As I have mentioned above on two occasions, I have not seen any of your beloved statistics in my five years of researching in this niche, nor will I commit Original Research to whip up some basically useless numbers. I suspect that no aviation historian has ever wrangled the numbers simply because it is not worth doing. Certainly, there has been a WP consensus that WWI victory score data is not accurate enough to illustrate the over-claiming of air victories.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I acknowledge that you completely fail to see the issue. The lead is too short. I repeat myself, adding statistics can be one way of lengthening the lead. How you lengthen the lead is totally up to you.
      • However, if you have some stats to share from a reliable source, I would certainly consider them.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
      • We will have to agree to disagree upon the subject of rewriting source material, even unto the lowly N-dash.
      • Bibliography is now templated. This correction is another nine for one deal.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Color coding was supplanted by screen reader wiki-code. I have also eliminated the contentious crosses. I never saw much reader usefullness in this feature.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't buy that. You can have both, if you know how its done. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
        • There are a few references still badly formatted. Check
  1. Kulikov, Victor. Russian Aces of World War 1: Aircraft of the Aces. Osprey Publishing, 2013. ISBN 1780960611, 9781780960616.
  2. Newton, Dennis. Australian Air Aces: Australian Fighter Pilots in Combat. Newton, Dennis. Motorbooks International, 1996. ISBN 1875671250, 978-1875671250.
  3. Pieters, Walter M. Above Flanders Fields: A Complete Record of the Belgian Fighter Pilots and Their Units During the Great War. Grub Street, 1998. ISBN 1-898697-83-3, ISBN 978-1-898697-83-1.
  4. Shores, Christopher; Mark Rolfe. British and Empire Aces of World War I. Osprey Publishing, 2001. ISBN 1-84176-377-2, ISBN 978-1-84176-377-4.

The problem is that {{Cite book}} renders the references in the sequence <last name>, <first name>, <year>, <title> the references above but the year of publication at the end. This needs to be consistent MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)



Support Comments -- Hi George, not an expert on lists but I guess I know a thing or two about WWI aces and I do recall reviewing the list of aces with 20 or more victories ages ago...

  • Image licence looks okay, however the pic should be on the right, per std procedure in articles (incl. the 20-victories list); the fact that the subject would then look 'into' the article is an added bonus.
  • I realise "This list is complete" is common to the 20-victories article but I think that's a very bold statement no matter how well researched the article. If the list was known to be incomplete then we should say so but I think readers will assume that it's (believed to be) complete unless otherwise noted.
    • How about: "This list contains 100% of all World War I credited with five aerial victories by their respective air forces. Proof from source contained date, location, and opponent for five defeats." Because that is what it is. In six instances, that means the Aerodrome is the sole reference. In this instance, [1], I am not accepting an Aerodrome listing.
      • Still doesn't work for me, I'm afraid. I just think there will always be the possibility of dispute over who was or wasn't an ace, or new information/assertions coming to light; this particularly applies to the list of those who 'just make the cut', as here. An example is Les Holden, whom I mention below. One of the major sources for Australian aces, A.D. Garrisson's Australian Fighter Aces, doesn't include him. Dennis Newton's Australian Air Aces does. Generally I've found Newton a somewhat more meticulous chronicler than Garrisson, but the decider for me was that Osprey's S.E.5/5a Aces lists him as well. As I said above, I just don't think such a note is prudent or necessary at all, we should just say something if we believed the list was incomplete. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
        • But I had him listed, did I not? And I don't see any requests for inclusions, only for exclusions. No, Ian, I will extend my statements above. As you are well aware, this list is the last in a sequence of nine. All nine of those lists are complete.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I might add there will probably always be hassles about who is truly an ace, regardless of circumstances.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Howsomever, if consensus developed that the Aerodrome is not reliable enough to be a sole source, then those six names would be removed…and the list would still be complete!Georgejdorner (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Yep, well if The Aerodrome is the only source I'd have to go with losing them (as far as consensus goes, doesn't appear I'm the only one questioning it). If The Aerodrome entries happen to cite reliable sources, then I'd check those sources and use them to ref here. Either way, I'm afraid I can't support this with The Aerodrome as a source, particularly a sole source. Sorry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as referencing goes, Newton isn't currently cited; I would correct that by using him, rather than the Australian Dictionary of Biography, to cite the Les Holden score (Newton pp. 38–39).
    • I like the idea of the extra cite. It may take a bit of doing, as I believe that the Bibliography is on one of those darned templates. Give me a mo or two, guv'nor.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Further on referencing, you know what I think of The Aerodrome at A-Class; with all the other refs you have I'd be surprised if it was needed (in fact if it were the only ref for certain scores then I'd be a little suspicious).
  • Prose-wise, there's not a lot but it looks fine and I realise is common to similar lists. However the statement "The scores presented in the list cannot be definitive, but are based on itemized lists that are the best available sources of information. Loss of records by mischance and the passage of time complicates reconstructing the actual count for given aces.[2]" is used twice. I would get rid of the first instance, so it appears only at the end of the intro.
    • I note the dup passage is still there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Otherwise I'm pretty happy with this, certainly in comparison to the 20-victories list that's been at FL for some time. However if this list's ultimate destination is also FL then as far as formatting goes I'd listen closely to others who have had nominations there recently like MisterBee or Parsecboy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Belatedly supporting for the record as all my concerns were addressed by the end. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments (since I was pinged)

  • Why is there an empty "References" section at the bottom?
  • Why are both 10 and 13-digit ISBNs included?
    • To insure maximal reader access to sources. I realize there is a belief that every English language library in the world instantly changed to 13-digit ISBNs when they came in, but I don't subscribe to that. Some libraries, especially in third world countries, are almost certainly still stuck with 10-digit ISBNs.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Why is a non-standard reference style used?
    • Nonstandard? At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Types_of_citation, it is the first type of cite mentioned.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not talking about the citations. I'm talking about the references. Just about no citation styles recommend title first. The author names come first in all of the major citation styles (CMOS, APA, MLA, etc.). We've been through this before on one of your earlier lists.
        • We can take it as an article of good faith that I have an imperfect memory. Having settled that, are you talking about nonstandard reference style in the Bibliography listings?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
          • It was some time ago, so I understand not remembering. But yes, the formatting of the references does not adhere to any style guide I am aware of. I believe your rationale in the earlier discussion had to do with the fact that the same handful of authors wrote the majority of these books in varying combinations. I suggested using the {{sfn}} footnote template, which links each footnote to the reference entry in question, to avoid any confusion. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
            • I remember that case quite well; I was foolish enough to BE BOLD and suggest that readers might be capable of referring to sources by alphabetic lookup instead of page number. That is irrelevant to this case. Once again, I am asking: Is your "non-standard" comment aimed at the Bibliography listings?Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
              • Yes, that section should adhere to one of the standard formatting guides. Since this is a history-related article, Chicago style might be the most appropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
                • Altered.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
                  • Just one last question on this: on the first ref, why are the three names listed after the title? Are they editors/translators/something else? If so, it should be make clear.
                    • Missed that in the change and sort party I had down there. Great catch. Corrected.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Why is the first citation in a different style from the rest?
    • That cite is the only one that refers to a magazine article.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • No, do you see that the text is smaller?
        • Ah, that. That's on the top template. I'll see what I can do (if I can find my way into the top template to edit).Georgejdorner (talk)
          • I've been into the top template. I expected to see the "small" operator in use, and eliminate it. However, I was unable to identify any codes that reduce that footnote's size. "It is a bepuzzlement."Georgejdorner (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • What makes The Aerodrome a reliable source? I couldn't find anywhere on the website a list of its authors and their credentials.
    • Please see discussion above.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I would like to add, that while I have accesssed the site's bibliography in the past, I'll be darned if I can locate it now.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ian on the "This list is complete" bit, especially since the line directly above starts with "The scores presented in this list cannot be definitive…"
    • Again, please see discussion above.
      • I know, I was just voicing my opinion.
        • Acknowledged.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
          • What you might do is add a footnote explaining how entries were included/excluded. For instance, see here in a list I've gotten through FLC.
            • I kind of touched on inclusion/exclusion with Ian above. We already have "When aircraft began to shoot or force down other aircraft, systems to count "air victories" were subsequently developed. The American qualification of five victories eventually became the standard…" are the second and third sentences of the article. The See also link above will yield a definition of what constituted an aerial victory, air service by air service. However, I do think you are onto something.
              • What I'm getting at is that you've made editorial decisions about who to include and who to not. For instance, you pointed out above that you chose not to include Norman McNaughton because the evidence presumably isn't strong enough to confirm his five kills. It would be better to have something along the lines of "This list contains all airmen whose claims to five victories can be reliably verified. Those for whom the evidence is unavailable or fragmentary have been excluded." Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
                • Added similar comments to lead, tailored to fit the template. Brilliant suggestion, by the way.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
                  • That looks better.
    • I might add, that if these victory lists can exist only by reporting definitive scores, then they will be abolished. I think there will be a bit of reader reaction to that.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Translations for foreign language terms should be included on the first mention.
    • Only foreign terms in list are names of air services listed in the clearly labeled Air Service column, next to their nationality. The translation of the air service's name is available at the other end of a link. How about giving our readers a little credit for perception?Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • One should never assume what the reader knows. And one should also not force readers to click a link to find out what something is.
        • I do believe in readers' common sense and their ability to use a blatantly obvious context, that's all.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
          • It's unwise to decide that what you find to be blatantly obvious to be true for everyone else. Parsecboy (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Come on, Parsec. For instance, listing Corpo Aeronautico Militare under the Air Services column within an inch of "Italy" and an Italian flag is blatant and obvious context. Making it Corpo Aeronautico Militare and Italy only makes it more so.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The table appears to only include the purple highlighting to indicate KIA/MIA/etc. but the caption says the dagger symbol should be included as well. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Great catch, Mr. Sharpeyes! I have remedied it.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Another question: is it worthwhile to have all of the columns sortable? For instance, the last one is identical, apart from the citation. Parsecboy (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I became aware of this sortability feature a couple of hours ago, Parsec. What can I say?Georgejdorner (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • All of my comments have been addressed to my satisfaction, so I'm ready to support the list for A-class. Great work, George. Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's note I entered this review on the reasonable supposition that since Featured List List of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories had worked out all the coding and template kinks during its review, I would be dealing principally with sourcing and text issues during this review. Obviously, this has become not the case. I would beg the indulgence of the other participants while I take the time to try to figure out all the coding and template issues that have been unexpectedly dropped on me.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You may find this discussion useful ?! MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Tks MisterBee, good context. George, the thing about the 20 victories list is that its promotion occurred almost four years ago and I gather standards have tightened since then. There's no special urgency with upgrading this article, it's a new nom, plenty of time for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The upside of this situation is that any correction we make on the templates actually corrects nine lists. The downside is that errors are likewise broadcast.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Another upside: Cleaning up the common elements in this list will definitely ease the way for the remaining lists.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's note: I seem to have a consensus that entries on this list that depend solely on The Aerodrome for citing a source should be deleted. This means those six listings should also be listed for deletion. I am posting this in case there are any objections to the procedure.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Followup: Listed as articles for deletion on 26/27 November:

Reliable source(s) on Patrick Gordon Taylor may be available from the estimable Ian Rose, so I have held his listing for deletion in abeyance.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that a flying ace itself established some level of notability. Second thought, why do we have a list of 5 victories flying aces if the aces themselves are not notable. A list of not notable items kind of invalidates itself. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think George is listing them for deletion because they're only notable for being aces but because there's some question as to whether or not they can be reliably sourced as aces. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I thought I had a mandate from this crew of assessors to post these articles for Afd because they did not belong on this list due to lack of proof of acedom. Otherwise, I would not have posted them. The comments at Afd do mirror MisterBee's definition of notability. I have used a more conservative screening for notability by requiring an ace to win an award or honor per WP:ANYBIO.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Now that Afds are being settled as "Keep", what shall we do with the articles? Add them back to the list? Put them on the Talk page with a note?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest the following be noted at the top of the list: This list may be considered complete. However, please check the list's talk page for details.
On the talk page, I would suggest the following notice: The following aces are not listed due to a paucity of reliable secondary sources per WP:Verifiability#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Such information that does exist about them may be accessed via their biographical links below.
Then, of course, list them there.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's note: I seem to be down to the last obstacle to promotion (I hope). I have begun copying the code into the list, though today I am plagued by WP's server problems. It will take some time to fill in code; this list alone has 399 names.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Posted new listing coded for screen readers and for sortability.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
And as an added fillip, the column header software has been transplanted to List of World War I aces credited with 15–19 victories, where the "sort - row" code was already in place.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's note: With the last of the suggested Afds settled as Keep, it looks to me as though it may be time to close this review. I appended a victory list to each of the five Keep bios, referenced to The Aerodrome, so that readers can see the aces' victory records. I did this in preparation of saving those lists, whether back on the list or on the List's Talk page.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Nominator's last note: Okay, it has become apparent to me that it is useless to continue this review. It is going to fail because I cannot supply nonexistent information to extend the lead. Close it out and be done with it. I am tired of wasting my energies. Sisyphus may not have been bright enough to quit, but I am. I am not only through with this list, but I am giving up working on any lists. In fact, I may be through with Wikipedia entirely. It's becoming an unenjoyable place to write.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support. I've read through the list, and read through all the comments, and it looks like it should go to AList. Although it relies largely on a few sources, these are what is available in English, and it is seemingly well sourced. The nominator has responded as best he could to the comments, the list is sensibly organized, clear, and sources are identified. Nice job to Georg and MrBee for taking on a monumental task, too! auntieruth (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.