Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Albert Ball

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 20:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Ball[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)


Albert Ball was in his lifetime the highest-scoring British fighter ace of World War I. He was also the first to gain popular adulation in the UK, helped to design his own fighter prototype, and died at just 20. This co-nomination with Georgejdorner is the long-delayed follow-up to our successful ACR (and later FAC) for another World War I ace, Stan Dallas. We plan on taking this one to FAC as well assuming a positive outcome here, so any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for books
    • Done.
  • File:AlbertBallPortrait.JPG: if we don't know who the author is, how do we know it was created by the UK government? Same with File:Austin_AFB_1_Outside_Longbridge_Works.jpg
    • Re. first, I think we just assumed it must be an official portrait but admittedly no proof of that -- replaced with the painting in the Other Awards section.
      • Replaced again with one of the photos mentioned below as the image of the painting appears to be copyright (even though the painting itself probably isn't due to being an official government commission). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re. second, can't locate any definite PD images of this aircraft. Given that, and the fact that only one example was built so long ago, may be a case instead for a fair-use rationale...
      • Nomminated this one for deletion from Commons; once done will see about recreating on WP with a FUR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Albert_Ball_portrait.jpg: who is the author, and what is his/her date of death? Same with File:Albert_Ball_SE5a_cockpit.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finetuned the licensing on these. Tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding images, FWIW, the ODNB article lists all the likenesses of him the author of that article found. Those include one held at the National Portrait Gallery of him driving a car, see here. Also, the Poole statue model ended up in the NPG via Ball's father, see here. Probably worth mentioning that in the article, as it is on public display. The E. N. Birkett photograph (at the IWM) is mentioned in the ODNB listing. The only non-IWM photographs (I presume someone has checked whether File:AlbertBallPortrait.JPG is one of the IWM ones?) are: "photograph, repro. in P. G. Cooksley, VCs of the First World War: the air VCs (1996)" and "photographs, repro. in Revell, High in the empty blue". If someone has copies of those, they could check where that photograph is from. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although the NPG car shot is presumably PD as the photographer died over 70 years ago, I have to admit I don't find it particularly remarkable so perhaps we'll keep that in reserve... I think that's a fair suggestion re. the Poole statue, will see if I can work it in. Re. File:AlbertBallPortrait.JPG, I've double-checked IWM but it's not online, and the Osprey book I scanned it from has no further info, which is why I just bit the bullet and dropped it for now at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the author information is wrong for File:Albert Ball portrait.jpg. It currently says 'Imperial War Museum Photograph Archive Collection', when it should say 'E. N. Birkett'. Though I'm not sure what should be done here, as the IWM catalogue page doesn't specify the photographer, but the ODNB article does. And does the photograph being part of the IWM collection mean it is OK for use here? Or do you have to check the details of E. N. Birkett? Sadly, I've been unable to find out any more details here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Albert Ball portrait.jpg seems to be the most ubiquitous image of the man, on the cover of Bowyer's book, in the ODNB entry, and in a couple of other WWI ace books I've seen. Interestingly, I've only seen the Birkett credit in ODNB. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing my comments and discussion - will post a consolidated summary. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The citation format of the references is not one that I'm used to. The title of the work (Albert Ball VC. pp. 20–21) is used instead of the "author, year" (e.g. Bowyer 1977) format I'm more used to seeing. In at least one case (which I mention below), the citation format is not that normally used, and this might be the case for other citations as well.
    • The citation style is not one I normally use either but it seems clear enough so, given I didn't begin work on the article till after it had got to B-Class, I applied the guideline that one doesn't mess with the existing citation style unless one really needs to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but I'm talking here about whether the citation style used is valid or not. Only once you've determined that can you start talking about not changing to other citation styles. You say "it seems clear enough". That doesn't really answer the question of whether it is valid or not. There are reasons standard citation styles have been developed. Is this citation style one of them, and if not why not? Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • How are you judging "validity"? Personally I use author/title in articles I start or develop largely from scratch, never author/year, and I've never had an issue in all the GANs and FACs I've done. Granted the style I inherited here uses only title but the point is that clearly more than one format is acceptable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Validity might be the wrong word. I have just found it awkward to use, as I got into a terrible tangle trying to put a non-book source in the "references" section, mainly because creating a "shortened" form to use in the main body of the article wasn't really working. I then realised that it was best to just create a single reference to use. The "title, page numbers" format seems to work best for long books where you need to cite the page numbers. For short articles and sections of only a few pages (like the 2-page ODNB article), it makes little sense to cite as a book, which is why I switched to 'cite encyclopedia' and made it a standalone 'named' ref tag (like the London Gazette and web citations), not listed with the books. Overall, though, I sort of get how this format works now. I guess I need to learn to work more with other citation formats! Short answer: I'm happy now with this citation format, so consider this point dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry, one last point, I have been using Stan Dallas as a comparator at times, and I thought the 'author, title' format used there was better. The point being that WP:CITEVAR shouldn't mean "preserve the existing citation format at all costs" but rather "improve the citation format if needed, and don't avoid asking if you can change it as sometimes people will be happy to change if you ask politely". Variation is good, but so is some degree of consistency across citation formats. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's cool, I'll add authors to the existing titles for consistency with the Dallas article (and my usual style). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ODNB citation is not the standard one used. It should give the name of the author of the article and the title of the article, not the ODNB editors and the name of the entire biographical dictionary. Also, there are many ways to link to the ODNB entry, and those links should be provided even though subscription is required. Have a look here for the doi reference. If you are using the latest version of the ODNB article (January 2011), the citation they provide is:

    David Gunby, ‘Ball, Albert (1896–1917)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2011, accessed 6 Oct 2011

    There are two previous version of this biography, published in October 2008 and September 2004. Ideally you need to specify which version you are citing. Can you remember which version you referred to here?
    • I don't have an issue with the article author/title suggestion above, however I used a hard copy of the 2004 ODNB so that's the ref I've given. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may have used a hard copy of the 2004 ODNB, but you (or whoever wrote out the details) got the name of one of the editors wrong. The link is to Colin Matthews (composer, born 1946) instead of Colin Matthew (historian, 1941-1999). On the article/author issue, it's non-negotiable really. David Gunby is the author of the work you are citing so you absolutely have to cite him - you wouldn't reference a journal article and cite only the journal title and pages and the journal editors and omit the author names and article title, would you? Returning to the wider issue of ODNB citation, it might be worth looking at Template:ODNBweb, though that has its own problems as it too doesn't name the authors of the articles to which it links. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update: I fixed the Matthew link and then tried to redo the ODNB reference to correctly credit the actual author of the article (David Gunby). While doing that I checked the formatting of the other references and corrected two typos ([1], [2]). I'm not entirely happy with the shortened cite I came up with for the ODNB reference, but that is partly due to trying to fit into the existing citation system in use (I would normally have just said "Gunby 2004"). I also compared the ODNB articles online for the 2004, 2008 and 2011 editions, and they are identical apart from a change in title case for one word from 2004 to 2008, so I made this change. There is, however, still a slight conflict between providing page numbers from the 2004 print edition and a link to the 2011 online edition (which also needs to be marked subscription needed, though more people are likely to have access to the online edition through public libraries than the print edition). Not sure how to resolve that. Do we provide both the page numbers and the online link or just one? In passing, the original entry for Ball in the DNB (the predecessor publication to the ODNB) was published in 1927: "Ball, Albert (1896–1917), airman, by H. A. Jones". Doesn't add anything as far as I can tell that isn't in the later articles, but noting this here for completeness. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the 'Victoria Cross and legacy' there is more that can be said about the memorials. It should be possible to find and name the sculptor of the statue and more details (the image description page mentions a "flying angel"). See here, for example. That page says the statue was unveiled by Sir Hugh Trenchard, with the design by E. Rickards (who is Edwin Alfred Rickards, 1872-1920) and the bronze part of the memorial was by Henry Poole. Other details include the base being made of granite and Portland Stone, and the unveiling date being 8th September (more specific than the article is at the moment). It also mentions the "allegorical robed figure of a woman representing the air".
    • Well I considered Homestead a bit iffy as an RS, so replaced pretty well every one of its citations with something else, however I'm happy to add a bit more on memorials if I can find it elsewhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not difficult to find reliable sources on memorials, and certainly not for this memorial. Please ask if you have any trouble with this, I would be happy to help. Though having said that, the situation with who designed which bits of the memorial looks rather complicated. Rickards died before it was unveiled. The architectural firm of Brewill and Baily are listed here and other sources mention the firm of Lanchester and Rickards. So careful sourcing needed here. Having said that, I found a picture of the marker in the field, see here, so that is nice to see. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Updated: 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current source used for the statue information is h2g2 (which is in transition), not the BBC. This means I can't compare this source to the one I've provided above, but that needs fixing in any case.
    • Charming, that move must've just happened in the last couple of days, because I checked every online source less than a week ago. Have to see about this... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions a "plain memorial stone" erected at the crash site. Does this still exist and can it be photographed?
    • Can't say either way on this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To update this, it is not a "plain memorial stone", it is an inscribed memorial stone, and photographs of it and the inscriptions can be seen here. There is also a nice photo here of the grave. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better photograph of the grave would be nice at some point. I've been in that area and may travel there again at some point. It is likely that it gets photographed a lot, so obtaining a higher-resolution photo at some point shouldn't be impossible.
    • I'm not entirely happy with it either but another editor added it in good faith and I thought it churlish to make a fuss over the quality; if you or someone else can provide a better one then we can use that instead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would personally link to the CWGC record at some point. It doesn't add an awful lot of extra information, but it is something standard for WWI and WWII casualties that can be linked to in the external links, and from there people can find out more about the location of the grave (or it can be cited to confirm information about the grave).
    • No prob with that, I often use a CWGC link for flyers killed in action but hadn't remembered to do so for Ball. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for including the British Pathe film reel link. That site is a great resource and should be linked to more often. Personally, I would mention in the article itself that the unveiling was filmed, but that might not be to everyone's taste.
    • If you're not that fussed either way I think the external link is enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French school news (excerpted from an article in The Times from 1999) in the external links is nice (also naming the local girl who cradled him as he died and mentioning that her relatives still tend his grave). Is there a reason some form of this is not included in the main article?

I found two sources giving two distinctly differing names for the young French woman who pulled Ball from the wreckage. They seemed of equal reliability. For that reason, I omitted the name, figuring it was better not to include a fact of dubious accuracy. Barring conclusive proof of her identity, I feel it best that it stay deleted, although a mention of the annual ceremony might be a welcome addition.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I wanted to include it too but again in the interests of foolproof RSs I wanted to locate and cite the original Times article, but couldn't find it online. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I see a copy of the article from The Times of 1999 I'll drop a note back here. And having looked, I ended up finding the website of the actual school itself! See here. Though you will probably still want some news reports as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Updated: 01:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Commons link takes readers to the gallery page rather than the category (which has more pictures). I've changed this here. If you prefer to link to the gallery (where it is possible to arrange and annotate the pictures), then I'd suggest add more pictures from the category.
    • Not that concerned either way myself... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a work from 1918 listed under 'further reading'. This looks like a contemporary biography published after his death. If this and the 1977 work by Bowyer and the ODNB article by Gunby are the main sources on this person, then it is worth saying that here (i.e. that you are not aware of any other sources) and possibly mentioning in the article the progression from contemporary biography to later biography to ODNB entry. Is it possible to say how his death was reported in the media of the time? The Gazetting of the VC doesn't seem to say he was dead, but the posthumous promotion to captain presumably did. Was the death reported only in the London Gazette, or did other papers report it as well?
    • Heh, I've actually seen the 1918 work and took some notes from it a while back but managed to lose them! I didn't pursue it because I found it more a memorial than a true biography. Can't really do much about tracing progression in biography from then to now, however if I can locate something on contemporary media reports I will, as George and I found a couple of reactions to Stan Dallas' death that I think worked well in that article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Further reading listing is just that–further reading. It is not used as a source for the bio.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • If you have trouble accessing contemporary news reports, let me know, as I'd be happy to help with that. There were reports in the New York Times, such as this one if that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Updated: 01:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Albert Ball Sr. bought the French field where his son had died and erected a plain memorial stone on the crash site." Do you have a date for this? Presumably in the years immediately after the war?
    • If I can find this info, will add it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the Lenton homes built in his memory still exist?
    • Well they did in 1981, according to the Lenton Listener. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That source is from 1981, some 30 years ago now. Updates since then might be worth noting. I took a look and immediately found the details of the Albert Ball Memorial Homes being Grade-II listed in 1995. More details below. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the sources mentioned in the references section of the ODNB article is: "R. H. Kiernan, Captain Albert Ball (1933)". Is it worth trying to obtain a copy of this, or mentioning it in further reading?
    • Looked but couldn't find it in the catalogues of the major Sydney libraries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Kiernan book is held at the British Library, so will try and have a look at some point (though other books and papers will likely take priority as I want to order those ones up first). Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with other Ball memorabilia" - is it possible to give some details here? A few examples?
  • "A memorial to Ball, along with his parents and sister, appears on the exterior wall of the southwest corner of Holy Trinity Church in Lenton" - is it possible to supply a year here for when this was first erected, and was it added to over the years as a family memorial?
  • "One of the houses at Nottingham High School Junior School is also named after Ball" - again, is it possible to date this? This sort of thing is notoriously hard to pin down, but it would be nice to know. The real point being that if you can't date it and no-one else has been bothered to date when this happened, then it is essentially trivia.
    • I tend to agree with you, the only reason I left it in was because it was because of the Nottingham connection -- I can't give a date for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ODNB article gives an exact date of 9 May for the burial (not specified in the Wikipedia article).
  • There are various quotes removed to the talk page 2 years ago. Is it worth bringing some of those back in with sources as provided there?
    • Yep, saw them. I felt we had a reasonable number of quotes in the article, but happy to give the talk page another scan and/or add some if George is keen on them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those quotes had been included by editor(s) prior to me, and were being deleted at an earlier stage of the article's evolution. I rescued them and saved them on the Discussion page as a courtesy to those editor(s) preceding me. I also tagged them with such source(s) as came readily to hand (and computer mouse). Although interesting, I do not consider them vital.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure how crediting of victories is done, but does the final one (the forcing down of Lothar von Richthofen) really count as a victory if Ball didn't return safely?
    • Well, as noted, it's not a confirmed victory. In any case, I don't think failure to return from a sortie necessarily precluded credit for a "kill" during that sortie. It might well be that, had the combat not been so hectic that day, Ball would've received offical credit for that last one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The final unconfirmed victory over Lothar von Richthofen is included because of the claim that just the opposite occurred. The circumstances that indicate that the German claim is false are included in the article. Although latter day air historians have discredited the German claim (see Above the Lines, pp. 186-187, which does not list it), the bogus version is widespread and needs countering. Your comment does make me see dissonance between the two biographies. (Another little corrective chore lurks.) (Note: done.)

Crediting a dead flier with an aerial victory is as old as the concept of reporting the wins; Pyotr Nesterov died by ramming an Austro-Hungarian plane, and that was the first aerial victory ever. There are other examples, specific to British fliers, but I would have to root around for them.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Might be worth noting these archives exist.
    • Do you suggest mentioning it in the Legacy section or just adding under External Links? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still reading the rest of the article. May add more comments later. Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • Ball's name is listed on the Lenton War Memorial, erected in 1919, mentioned in the Lenton Listener article. This could be mentioned in the Wikipedia article and a photograph of the war memorial and the name would be possible. The Lenton War Memorial is also right in front of the Memorial Homes, as can be see in the photograph in the Lenton Listener article. This proximity of location should be mentioned.
    • Well I'm happy to add that War Memorial is in the same street as the homes (the text mentions both being in Church St) but not sure how we assume the building behind the memorial in the photo is from the Memorial Homes -- we'd need more precise sourcing to establish such close proximity I think. Also not sure we have room for more images in the legacy section of article without sandwiching text. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The English Heritage source I found says the war memorial was also paid for by the family, though I'm not entirely happy with that as I suspect they may be conflating things there. Certainly the statue was from a public subscription fund set up by the town authorities. And the homes funded by the family. The war memorial history is less certain. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the Lenton Listener article: "The City Council decided to open a subscription fund to provide a tangible memorial to Albert Ball. Eventually a statue was commissioned and placed in the Castle grounds where it still stands." - the fact that the memorial was commissioned with funds raised by public subscription should be mentioned. It should also be possible to find out how much the fund raised.
    • Will add the part about public subsription. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Albert Ball Memorial Homes (formal name, should be in article) are Grade-II listed, as detailed here. Lots of nice details there. Though the address given there is Sherwin Road, not Church Street. You can see the homes quite clearly on the satellite/aerial views on Google Maps. They are at the junction of Church Street and Sherwin Road. A photograph would be excellent for this article, and a simple search on Commons reveals we have this picture - a search carried out on Commons for pictures relating to Albert Ball (if such a search was conducted) should have picked this up (even if it is not good enough for the article, it should be added to the category that readers of this article are being directed to). One minor correction: "a row of eight homes" is slightly misleading. It appears to be a single building with eight flats contained within them. We also have an article on the architect who designed the homes: Arthur Brewill (though that article has several mistakes that need correcting - I'll try and help out there).

Pardon the interjection here; however, in my research I discovered that this part of Nottingham has been renumbered since Ball's era, and some of the streets were even renamed.

Georgejdorner (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Heh, when our so-called reliable sources conflict with what the eye sees (the old "verifiability vs. truth" issue) then I usually find it best to just try and word things with a tiny bit less detail, so any contradiction disappears... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found the English Heritage maps much more helpful. That shows the way the homes are split into 8 units, so it is really a terraced row of eight, to its own unique design, athwart the angle formed by the road junction, with the war memorial and gardens taking up the 'point' where the roads meet. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this sentence is misleading: "A memorial to Ball, along with his parents and sister, appears on the exterior wall of the southwest corner of Holy Trinity Church in Lenton." From the Lenton Listener article, it seems there are *two* objects. A memorial plaque to Ball, and a family memorial stone. This is not clear in the Wikipedia article. Again, photos of both will be possible here.

In general, I think a potential weakness here is not bringing things up-to-date, as apart from the ODNB reference, this article relies heavily on sources from 1977 and 1981. I would suggest careful checking to see if any further developments in the intervening period (e.g. the Grade-II listing of the Memorial Homes, and the French school) need to be incorporated into the article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll rejig the bit about the memorial(s). Again, photos of these as well may crowd the article, and overbalance the number of (PD or otherwise usable) images of the man while he was alive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments (mainly literary and cultural)

  • The 1978 musical Billy Bishop Goes to War includes a sequence that includes the recitation of a poem titled 'The Dying of Albert Ball', some details of which can be found by searching Google Books (three hits).
  • There is a poem included in this 1918 memorial booklet (looks to be different to the Briscoe and Stannard one mentioned in the article already), and if you put the phrases "Cobbold" and "Albert Ball" together into Google Books, you get several hits that look really worthwhile. W. N. Cobbold was the author of a 1918 or 1919 poem called 'Captain Albert Ball, VC, DSO'.
    • Mmm, I imagine he might have inspired various songs or poems and it might be difficult to judge how significant or popular they were -- "in popular culture" stuff seems generally frowned upon so I'd prefer to mention any that were notable in themselves (in WP terms) or by notable authors. However I will check those links you've given. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not popular culture, it's culture pure and simple (nothing popular about it). I despair sometimes when people mistake cultural aspects of something for "in popular culture" (which is a Wikipedia term-of-art anyway). The sources I have are academic ones, anyway, so that should reassure you. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that I've explained a bit on my talk page to Georgejdorner the perspective I'm trying to bring to the article, not so much a military or aviation perspective, but more the social history and memorial and legacy aspects. As I said there, it is possible to overdo that, but I do think it is an important part of the story here. All the bios I've read about Ball emphasise that he was a hero to the public and it is important not to downplay that here. I have the book Who's Who in World War I (2001), where the entry for Ball says: "Together with William Leefe-Robinson, he was the first pilot to become a national hero". That entry also makes the point that many of the WWI aces now celebrated were little-known to the public during the war, with those such as Ball and Leefe-Robinson being an exception to this, a point I don't think quite comes across in the article yet. Carcharoth (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I don't think we're downplaying his status as a popular hero, given it's mentioned in the lead and elaborated upon in the main body of the article. As I've said on your talk page, I'm happy to expand on this and legacy part somewhat, commensurate with its emphasis in the sources, and will certainly add something on reactions to his death, but I want to make sure we don't overbalance things in relation to our reporting of the actual deeds that made him a hero. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from the article:

"...he was lionised as a national hero..."

"A crowd of journalists awaited him on his family's doorstep."

"...in a tribute from his native city, Ball became an Honorary Freeman of Nottingham." At age 20, he was only the seventh or eighth man so honored in the city's history (sources vary as to the number).

Isn't this proof of his appeal as a popular hero?

Georgejdorner (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had overlooked that when I made the comment. The point I was making was that this continued after his death. It was precisely because he was a popular hero (and because his family also funded various things) that there was the reaction after his death that there was. There were crowds lining the route the memorial procession took to the church, the public subscription funding the statue, that sort of thing. The point that hasn't been answered yet (or placed in the article) is discussion of his fame relative to other aviators and war aces of the period, both then and now (apart from his ranking in lists of kills). I touched on this above in the mentions of Billy Bishop and William Leefe-Robinson, but from what I can tell, Ball and a few others were unique because they became famous during the war, rather than after the war. Now the source I quoted (from 2001) might be wrong on that, but I'd like to see that addressed at least. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (this was a response to Ian above) I disagree that what I would expect to see in this article would be overbalancing, but I can only really demonstrate that by editing the article (as I have started doing), so I probably need to bow out of this review now. I'll add a note about that below. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been digging around the article some more. And have two points that need to be made here:

  • (1) Grace's Guide is a wiki, but this page is used as a source for this article (currently reference number 8). You can't use a wiki as a reliable source - you will have to use the sources they use, which is stated as "Information from published lists in Flight magazine under the Official Notice to Members of the Aero Club of the UK (Royal Aero Club)".
  • (2) That wiki has an article on Albert Ball as well. It looks like they copied it from us, as they say at the bottom that one of their sources is "Wikipedia". But I can't see the page history over there to be certain of this. Care needs to be taken that things don't get too confusing here, and that the licenses are being ported correctly either or both ways.

I've also put some notes on the article talk page. That is stuff that isn't strictly relevant, but can help clear up confusion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the article on the Grace wiki as an earlier draft of the very article being assessed.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possibly to have a response on this issue of sourcing to a wiki? Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Patience dear chap, still working through your edits WRT to your comments so we can tick things off... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! :-) I'm off for most of today, so I won't be adding more today to what I've said already. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated above, I'm being drawn too much into editing this article, so after this edit I'm going to raise matters on the talk page instead of here. Is there a non-messy way to transfer much of the above to the talk page and leave a clean slate so others can review from scratch? Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it looks like you've in any case made many of the changes you requested of us, and George and I may make further edits based on the discussion above, it's probably best to leave it all here, but perhaps in a collapsible section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary comments

  • More details of the memorial stone in the field where he crashed.
    • Are you talking about an inscription?
      • I was initially, but am now talking about the details of the history of that memorial, though as it seems to only be covered in one source, that may be difficult to reliably source and may be excessive detail. I do think some of the matters that you might consider excessive detail could still be handled adequately by footnotes (ones separated from the reference footnotes). Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More details of the crosses that marked his grave before the stone grave marker was erected.
    • Added inscription on first cross, plus sentence re. second cross, which means we now have all three mentioned/cited.
  • Another attempt made to confirm the French school details (thus reducing the external links).
    • Haven't located anything in my recent searches.
      • I will try and scan and e-mail you the article from The Times before any FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That'd be excellent, tks -- I'd like to add that tidbit using an RS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context in relation to other aces, including the Billy Bishop Goes to War mention.
    • Mannock, Bishop and McCudden all mentioned. I don't really think we need the play reference, Bishop already has more space than any of the other aces mentioned and further tidbits seems a bit excessive.
      • The mention of the play would be less in the context of Bishop, and more in the way the WWI aces (and Ball in particular) have been depicted in literature and by analyses in non-military history academia in the years since the war. The article only really touches on that with the Robertson reference (The Dream of Civilized Warfare: World War I Flying Aces and the American Imagination), and it doesn't seem a coincidence that this is the only reference from a university press. The other references appear to be mostly standard military history references. For the purposes of a MILHIST A-Class review, I'm happy to wait until a pre-FAC or FAC discussion before raising this again, but there are other sources out there that will need to be consulted on this to get additional perspective from academia outside military historians (I had already suggested at least two, and I'm pleased you found a third, though unsure why the other two were not used). Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies, I must've missed those. However since we have at last one similar source in the article now, if the others can wait till after this review that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The annual parade held at the statue memorial in Nottingham.
    • Haven't located anything in my recent searches.
      • It is covered in current news sources, though it is not clear when this tradition started I think it was before WWII. It was also mentioned by Georgejdorner, so you could ask him as well. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some consideration of the material raised for discussion on the article talk page.
    • A good deal more from his letters home, reaction to his death by colleagues, family and press, discussion of Captain Ball VC and tributes therefrom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. The bit from the Robertson book was excellent. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those six points are all that is left from me based on comments above and elsewhere (though the sixth one, relating to the talk page sections, is a bit open-ended). All the other stuff above (in the collapse box) should be considered resolved as far as I'm concerned. Apologies for the length of what is now in the collapse box, and I hope this summary helps. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for your additions and comments. While there are still points to be addressed re. images, I think should be able to largely leave the content alone now and let people review it in its current form. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Just rejigged and expanded the lead to a third paragraph to better reflect the weight of post-mortem information in the article now, as we discussed on the talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to "I think [we] should be able to largely leave the content alone now and let people review it in its current form", I agree, though as I said elsewhere, I would like to discuss the talk page material before any FAC. As far as MILHIST A-Class Review goes, though, I'm happy to support it, though I've probably edited the article enough that any support doesn't really count. I'll be interested to see what reviewers make of the expanded article. Please feel free to pull most of my comments above (and the responses) within the collapse box, but please leave this final comment visible for reviewers who may not open that collapse box. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re. further discussion before any FAC, no problem, I'd like to do so and I expect George would too. Re. potential support here, yep, was thinking the same thing. However it's not uncommon to put 'support with disclaimer' (followed in your case by a brief comment re. your additions to the legacy section) on one of these reviews. That at least makes it clear that you regard your comments as fully actioned for the purposes of the ACR, and the closing coordinator can determine how much weight to assign the support in terms of the overall result. Up to you... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was asked (on my talk page) to comment here again. Support for A-class, with the caveats noted above (I've worked a bit on the article and I've not reviewed in great details the flying career sections of the article). Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • If the article goes to FA discussion, you'll need to give some additional information on the portrait of Ball and the painting by Norman Arnold. At the moment the tags are the usual Crown Copyright one, but there is nothing on the description pages to back up the tag claim that either "is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created by the United Kingdom Government prior to 1961" - they are currently owned by the Imperial War Museum, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the painter, Edward Newling or Norman Arnold, was employed by the government when they painted them (NB: doesn't mean they weren't either, but the default presumption would be to the contrary).
    • Yes, I get you, this will need some further investigation. You know I could've sworn that the IWM collections database used to have "copyright expired" or some other PD tag on items like this (similar to the Australian War Memorial collections database, but I'm not confusing the two). I never assume paintings are out of copyright no matter where they originate and, as I uploaded these, I think they must've had such a tag. Do you recall tags like that in IWM or am I imagining it?
  • It seems likely - I'm sure the pages looked different when something like this came up before. I've done a bit of digging. Edward Newling, according to Harries' "The war artists: British official war art of the twentieth century", was officially appointed to make the portraits; Norman Arnold was also an official war artist and tasked to produce aerial paintings from 1916 onwards. I'm wondering if they've removed that tag because although the originals are clear of copyright, the IWM can claim copyright over the photograph of the original? (at least in the UK; the US and much of the rest of the world takes a different view!)
  • Mmm, it looks like it's not just for paintings but photos too. I'm sure the two shots in this article that came from IWM, the first one of him in front of the plane and the one in the S.E.5, had PD tags as well when I last looked... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've emailed IWM for clarification. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got some clarification from IWM -- the WWI photos are out of copyright and it looks like the paintings (certainly the dogfight one) are as well by virtue of official commission, however -- you guessed it -- the IWM photos of the paintings are copyright, so will have to remove them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he paid to undertake pilot training in his own time at the Ruffy-Baumann School, which charged £75 to £100 for instruction" - would be good to have a modern equivalent financial comparison figure.
    • Oddly enough I don't think I've ever done such a comparison in an article -- is there a tool we generally use for that?
  • Alas, I'm routinely plagued by stray financial figures! I prefer the Measuring Worth site, which is academically rigorous, gives advice on what statistic to use and is easy to operate. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as close to an "elite" unit as any established by the RFC" - is the "elite" a quote? If so, worth saying from whom; if not, I'm not sure the speech marks are necessary.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the quote is needed, now you mention it. Tks for cmts! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • Should it not be settled at Sedgley 43 Lenton Road as settled at 43 Lenton Road, in a home known as Sedgley. Sound like he was in an institution.
    • Heh, never thought of it like that; done.
  • You may want to consider linking knighted (Knight Bachelor) some of the non British, Commonwealth readers may not be familiar with the term.
    • Good idea; done.
  • Sorry the fact tag was for the commissioning date its normally found in the London Gazette or another ref could do
    • ODNB (already cited for that passage) had the exact date of commissioning; added.
  • The Ruffy-Baumann school was at Hendon you may want to add that in as a location.
    • Hendon is linked in that para.
  • his daily military duty at 6:45. - Presume it was a.m. ?
    • Done.
  • The only other comment is consider making the list of victory's sortable.
    • Sounds reasonable; may not get round to it immediately but should be able to do so before this review is buttoned up.

Enjoyed reading it well done. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Albert_Ball&oldid=825886903"