Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Bob Chappuis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has failed a couple of FACs so I thought I would get a new set of eyes on this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is being transcluded onto WikiProject Ohio's review subpage in hopes that it will garner more attention. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments First, I don't understand why there are two infoboxes. Also, the references section at the bottom should be formatted correctly. Other than that, looks good. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 19:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two infoboxes because, AFAIK, athlete infoboxes have not integreted the unifying infobox features seen at other types of infoboxes (see (Jon Corzine for example where the politician infobox is merged with the military one). Until the athletes have a way to merge boxes both are needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is wrong with the references? Do you mean that it is really an external links section. I have changed the name of the section hoping this is your point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Resolved comments by Stepshep
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 Yard, use 000 Yard, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 Yard. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I thought I had taken care of all of these. I will look more closely tomorrow. Today is a travel day.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added them everywhere that I noticed one was appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I had taken care of all of these. I will look more closely tomorrow. Today is a travel day.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following links need disambiguated: Brooklyn Dodgers (football), End around, and Sentry. (Dabfinder.py) §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
Other than those everything looks good. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The mdashes shouldn't be spaced, just caught that. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
- First of all, get rid of the No Free image in the second infobox. Obviously there is one, it's above. Either remove that parameter, or, if there's a picture of him in a military uniform or related to the military add that.
- "his father was an executive with a porcelain products company who had played quarterback for Denison University," Wait a minute, how does a porcelain company play American football? While this is obviously not what you mean, the only way to tell this is by the use of the pronoun who. It could be rephrased as something along the lines of his father — who had played quarterback for Denison University — was an executive with..."
- "He flew his first mission, which was targeting a railroad bridge in the heavily-fortified Brenner Pass on Christmas Day 1944." Eh? You just said he sank a cruiser in September 1944...Christmas Day is not in September.
- I am not a military guy and am not sure I understand the contradiction. Can one's crew sink a ship without one flying a mission? I am not really sure what the term crew even means precisely in this context.
- Yeah, flying a mission is going up in a plane, in this case presumably to bomb a target. I would assume that the crew, in this case, refers to the people on the bomber (pilot, copilot, bombardier, navigator, radioman, and gunners). In order for a bomber to sink a ship, they would have to get in the plane, fly to the ship, and drop bombs on it (fly a mission), so the article is self-contradictory there.
- If one's crew does something, does it mean that you were there? If I say my friends went some where, it is different than saying me and my friends went somewhere. The article does not say he earned a citation and he has no military decorations in his infobox. Presumably, he wasn't on the mission, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose not, but if, say, I'm a crew member on a ship, and the ship goes somewhere, it's implied that I did. Hence, if he's a crew member on a bomber, and the bomber goes somewhere, the reader thinks that he did. The crew is a collective noun, which refers to many people who are members of it. At the least, you should clarify.
- O.K. so we have arrived at two possibilities. 1.) The crew did this without him. 2.) there is a contradiction of fact. What change would you like to see made to the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would go ahead and remove the bit about the crew sinking the ship. If you're sure that the source says that he flew his first mission on Christmas, then what his crew did without him doesn't directly affect him.– Joe Nutter 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do places like the College Football Hall of Fame consider the fact important enough to include in their biographical description? Maybe we should make an alternate clarification.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would go ahead and remove the bit about the crew sinking the ship. If you're sure that the source says that he flew his first mission on Christmas, then what his crew did without him doesn't directly affect him.– Joe Nutter 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K. so we have arrived at two possibilities. 1.) The crew did this without him. 2.) there is a contradiction of fact. What change would you like to see made to the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose not, but if, say, I'm a crew member on a ship, and the ship goes somewhere, it's implied that I did. Hence, if he's a crew member on a bomber, and the bomber goes somewhere, the reader thinks that he did. The crew is a collective noun, which refers to many people who are members of it. At the least, you should clarify.
- If one's crew does something, does it mean that you were there? If I say my friends went some where, it is different than saying me and my friends went somewhere. The article does not say he earned a citation and he has no military decorations in his infobox. Presumably, he wasn't on the mission, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, flying a mission is going up in a plane, in this case presumably to bomb a target. I would assume that the crew, in this case, refers to the people on the bomber (pilot, copilot, bombardier, navigator, radioman, and gunners). In order for a bomber to sink a ship, they would have to get in the plane, fly to the ship, and drop bombs on it (fly a mission), so the article is self-contradictory there.
- I am not a military guy and am not sure I understand the contradiction. Can one's crew sink a ship without one flying a mission? I am not really sure what the term crew even means precisely in this context.
However, those were the only problems I could find, so please fix them and the ones mentioned above and it'll look good. – Joe Nutter 21:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- HEY Military folks can I get any help confirming info in this guys military infobox and maybe beef it up. About a year ago, I tried your talk page, but now I have a captive audience.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a look at the military infobox, it looks pretty accurate to me. In regards to beefing it up, I'm not sure you can do very much in this area as several of the additional aspects are covered in the lead infobox or seem to not apply. Is there an available image you can add to the article of Chappuis during his service years? If so, that should help a bit. Also, I'd move the image of the B-25 Bomber down a little further as it sandwiches the text. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_77#Decorations.2C_units_and_commands I had been curious about any more possible decorations, units and commands info as well as a contradiction I had found in terms of his rank. I guess those are the issues I am concerned with.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a look at the reference you provided, there is no way Chappuis would have been a private if he was a fully qualified bomber pilot; it must have just been dispalying his rank on enlistment. Campaign and/or service medals are not traditionally placed in the infobox, but if Chappuis was decorated with say a Purple Heart or Silver Star or Air Medal or some such medal then that would go in the infobox. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a look at the reference you provided, there is no way Chappuis would have been a private if he was a fully qualified bomber pilot; it must have just been dispalying his rank on enlistment. Campaign and/or service medals are not traditionally placed in the infobox, but if Chappuis was decorated with say a Purple Heart or Silver Star or Air Medal or some such medal then that would go in the infobox. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a look at the military infobox, it looks pretty accurate to me. In regards to beefing it up, I'm not sure you can do very much in this area as several of the additional aspects are covered in the lead infobox or seem to not apply. Is there an available image you can add to the article of Chappuis during his service years? If so, that should help a bit. Also, I'd move the image of the B-25 Bomber down a little further as it sandwiches the text. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support as long as the image remains hidden. Oppose, Comment Not supporting yet, there are a few issues for me.
- Has the licensing for File:Robert Chappuis.JPG been remedied yet?
- I have been in conversations with the Bentley Historical Library and the University of Michigan Director of Licensing regarding use of about 20 Bentley images on WP. About a month ago they expressed concern about commercial release as it pertained to endorsements. About two weeks ago, I got information regarding specific language in the creative commons 3.0 license from permissions. I have forwarded it, but don't expect to hold any conversations until after the holidays.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to include the military infobox. It didn't play that much of an important role in his life when compared to his sports career. The infobox adds absolutely nothing to the article that cannot be gained by reading the lead. The infobox is meant to neatly summarise and provide additional information not readily available in the text such as stats and figures. As it is, a two-line infobox is redundant.Struck but see my comment below- I have put in a request to merge infoboxes at Wikipedia:Help_desk#merging_infoboxes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a merge at the template and updated the infobox. Hope that helps. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 09:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is starting to look good, but the font size should be smaller. See Jack Kemp or Jon Corzine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks great now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that personally I don't see the need for that information in any infobox, merged or not; it adds nothing to the main body or lead. That is of course a personal preference and not something I can oppose over. Woody (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks great now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is starting to look good, but the font size should be smaller. See Jack Kemp or Jon Corzine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a merge at the template and updated the infobox. Hope that helps. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 09:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have put in a request to merge infoboxes at Wikipedia:Help_desk#merging_infoboxes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*"All-American American football player" reads weirdly for me, he is an All-American American...
- O.K. I have moved All-American to a later section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from those, it is well-cited and the prose reads ok. The image issue needs to be sorted before "A" though. Woody (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update, I have changed to oppose for this article solely because of the licensing issue. An article that has a potential copyright issue cannot be A-Class in my opinion, presumably coming under "A5" of the criteria, or common sense. If the image is removed, or the status clarified, then I would be very happy to support the article, as it is I cannot in good faith support it. Regards, Woody (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The conversation did not go well with the Licensing director. She went from objecting to availing the pictures for fear that they will be used for endorsement, which was a problem I was able to solve with the proper part of the creative commons license, which protects endorsement rights, to objecting to use for almost any personal or commercial purpose. I am going to be in touch with their legal dept, but it is not looking good with their new objection. The only way I am likely to get the University's approval for the 20 or so images currently in use will be to show that other universities allow usage of their archives via creative commons licensing. I guess I will hide the picture to get your support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You also need to note on File:Robert Chappuis.JPG the copyright status and that it isn't under the licence that it currently says it is. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update, I have changed to oppose for this article solely because of the licensing issue. An article that has a potential copyright issue cannot be A-Class in my opinion, presumably coming under "A5" of the criteria, or common sense. If the image is removed, or the status clarified, then I would be very happy to support the article, as it is I cannot in good faith support it. Regards, Woody (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.