Talk:John Capper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJohn Capper has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 31, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 20, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
April 9, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 15, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that British military engineer Major-General Sir John Capper helped develop both airships and tanks during his service with the Royal Engineers?
Current status: Good article

GA hold[edit]

This is on hold for 5 days. Please address these concerns:

  1. This seems just a tad short. Pls see if you can expand it some, perhaps in his early and family life. The companion article on his brother is a little bit longer.
  2. Are there any photos or sketches of him?
  3. See if you can find more refs. Sumoeagle179 11:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are quite major problems here and I don't know how to expand the article or find more refs as I used all avaliable resources in creating this piece. I have also been unable to locate a picture of him. I will see what I can do, but I am unlikely to find what is required before the alloted time.--Jackyd101 13:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no pics or more refs, then that's okay. Pls mainly focus on early and family. Perhaps looking refs on his brother would help. As for the time limit, those are mainly for cases where no one responds. As long as you just keep communicating and working on it, that's no problem. PLs leave status notes every 2 days or so.Sumoeagle179 02:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what you mean about family and youth? There is doubtless more information out there about his work in aviation and more on his war service (although I have not yet found it), but I don't think there was anything particulaly interesting in his youth to speak of and I the impression I get is that the brothers were not especially close; they went to different schools, different military academies and served in different parts of the Empire in different units etc. There certainly is more to be found and I will endeavour to find it, but in the meantime there is not a lot more I can do to the article with the resources I have. If at the end of the tie period I haven't managed to bring it up to standard then never mind, it was just a specualtive try. (I will also be away for a few days and won't be able to do anything to the article until the weekend). Thanks for your help, I'll see what I can do and all the best.--Jackyd101 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have to fail GA, regretably.Sumoeagle179 23:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I think it generally a good, well written article and only have the following comments:

Comments
  • Word repetition - In the lead, you have two sentences in a row that start with "He". And one sentence uses "helped" and "helping" - Suggest for improved prose and interest for the reader that you vary wording more.
  • Rephrased lead
  • Under references, none of the titles should be in all caps.
  • Done
  • The article seems lacking in some detail that would make it more complete and also add interest. It would be great to know more specifically what Capper contributed to tactics, for example, i.e. what were his particular strengths as a tactician compared to the tactics of others and more about the particular battle/wars and the tactical situations he faced; likewise some specific examples of why he was considered Stone Age , some of the specific building projects he was responsible for creating would allow the reader to better understand the man.
  • I'm afraid I have no additional information. This was a problem at the previous GA nomination and although I have expanded the article since then, there is still a limit to the information I have available. If this is a problem on which the article will fail then so be it I'm afraid.
  • Although I am not a fan of lengthy "personal life" sections, the mention that Capper was in command of the division in which his son was serving and was killed seems striking. Did this not have any effect on him?
  • It must have had an effect on him, but no reaction to his son's death is recorded in any of the sources. I have slightly rephrased as I am not sure which division his son served with in 1916 although he was definately killed on the Somme.

I will places this article on hold for now.

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have replied as best I can. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully, I must fail. He does not come to life as an individual. There is not enough information about him other than a chronology of his career. Sorry, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Reliable sources c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Broad in coverage b (focused): Lasts individual detail other than a chronology of subjects career.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Capper/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 19:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main complaint about the article is that it seems to be a list of his promotions without explaining what he did in each of these positions.

The intro promises a lot: "An experienced engineer, Capper was involved in numerous building projects during his years in India and pioneered the development of airships in Britain. He helped establish and command several military training establishments in Britain, was involved in large-scale military planning during 1918 and 1919 and was pivotal in establishing the tank as an important feature of the British Army. Although Capper was sometimes described as pompous and possessing poor communication skills, earning the nickname Stone Age for his attitude towards the ideas of junior officers in the Royal Tank Corps, he nevertheless played a vital role in the development and deployment of armoured vehicles in the British Army."

But the article doesn't elaborate on these achievements. For example, it sounds like he did interesting things in India, but the reader never learns anything specific.

Xtzou (Talk) 19:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the whole review, or is there more to come? Unfortunately, none of the sources I have avaliable give that kind of information. Its all in fairly broad brush strokes. If the nomination fails for this reason then so be it I'm afraid.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that you have done as as well as is possible, given the available sources. It is a complete article and covers the subject. You have been admirably true to your sources and skilfully crafted the article. Xtzou (Talk) 18:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Very well written; prose is clear
    B. MoS compliance:
    Complies with MoS
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations!

Xtzou (Talk) 18:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and the pass. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An experienced engineer?[edit]

The lead currently says that Capper was "an experienced engineer". Is this verifiable? The standard work on his aeronautical adventures, Percy Walker's Early Aviation at Farnborough, in two volumes (Macdonald, 1971 and 1974), makes it crystal clear that his engineering skills were rudimentary at best. For example his own attempt to design an airship was unsuccessful, while he left Farnborough's workshops in a sorry, run-down state compared to the excellence he had inherited. He understood how to use engineering but not how to do it. Just because a man rises to rank in the Royal Engineers does not make him an experienced engineer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The London Times said he "had a reputation as a scientific soldier whose progressive ideas were often in advance of the times and will be remember for his pioneer work in the early days of military aeronautics". He was certainly had 16 years experience in India with "military and public works" and later on South African railways, the fact he may not have been able to use his building contruction experience with aircraft doesnt mean he wasnt experienced in other fields. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The London Times piece should not be interpreted blindly. His ideas were progressive - he befriended the Wrights during their wilderness years and supported aeroplane work when others still doubted - but his expertise was not, he made his mark in aeronautics as a mere manager. I have read, possibly also in Walker, that his railway work in southern Africa (South Africa did not yet exist) was also more managerial than hands-on. I have a few biopics, I'll have to look them out, I won't believe he was any more experienced in civil engineering until I see it properly sourced. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have found confirmation. FYI, see Driver, H. The Birth of Military Aviation in Britain 1903-1914, Royal Historical Society 1997, p.180.[1]. It gives a little more detail on his training and early career. Sorry to bother you, and thanks for responding. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No company Atholl?[edit]

As noted, I rv'd because the deletion of this mention leaves open the question of what happened to the Dunne company. IMO, something needs to be said about it. Am I wrong the Atholl firm is a continuation? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Blair Atholl Aeroplane Syndicate Ltd. was incorporated on 10 December 1909, some time after Dunne, with the help of Capper and chums, had established himself at Sheppey. Capper was not a shareholder or employee of the Syndicate, though he appears to have been a customer, and quite probably their first. The mere fact that he ordered an aeroplane off the Syndicate is not sufficient justification for its subsequent history to be mentioned in this article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the impression I got from the text, so at a minimum, it needs clarifying. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at rewriting the bits that are relevant to Capper. Any better? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again, I'd keep the 1909 date quitting Farborough, & remove mention of Dunne moving, or move Capper's aid to the start of the 'graph, something like, "Capper & friends offered support to Dunne, & Capper bought one of Dunne's new aeroplanes ["new monoplanes" might be better] in 1911." A mention of it "built to order" could be left in, or not; IMO, not essential. Suit you? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed the Sheppey bit now. One could mention the fact that it was a monoplane, in fact there is the sub-plot that Dunne's original concept was for a monoplane and Capper agreed, but the Army insisted on a biplane, so Capper's monoplane was his chance to at last get his hands on a "pure" Dunne machine. But it is hard to give a clear account without straying from Capper the man or dabbling in OR, so I don't mind much either way. By contrast the "Built to order" bit is the key (and easily verifiable) part that links it to Capper and justifies its inclusion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, that'd be on Dunne's page; here, I think it's getting way OT. Have a look at my latest try. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am happy to leave it at that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Capper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Capper&oldid=1206540261"