Talk:John Emilius Fauquier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJohn Emilius Fauquier has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 26, 2008Articles for deletionKept
May 10, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
August 4, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Squadron No. 617[edit]

The sources cited in the 617 squadron article seem to contradict the claims in the sources for this article. The sources in the Fauquier article state multiple times and pretty unambiguously that he commanded 617 from Dec. 1944 to wars end.

The sources in the 617 article say that Commander JB "Willy" Tait was the CO from july 1944 on. The 617 website and the RAF have no mention of him. HOWEVER, the pdf of the logs from 617 clearly show him accepting command and leading raids.....interesting. Protonk (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the Second World War section, "By February 1942", "In September 1943", and "During January 1944" it would be best if there was a comma placed after 1942, 1943, and 1944.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The lead seems a bit short, can more info. be added to summarize the entire article? The article has a "red link", if it doesn't have an article, it would be best to un-link it, per here.
    Seems fine and check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    It would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} format. Also, for the book sources, use {{cite book}}.
    Half-check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I changed the web citations to citeweb. I think the book citations were all citebook with the exception of the book quoted in the webpage. Added to the lead and (hopefully) added some commas where appropriate. I probably introduced more punctuation errors than I fixed. :) Protonk (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems fine, but Reference 14 needs to be fixed with the proper cite web format. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but it is definitely non-traditional, as "quoted in" citations vary widely.  :| Protonk (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. :P After reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Protonk who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Initially thought it was quite a good idea to hide the citations, but having checked it with my current browser wehre I'm forced to have javascript disabled, I realise that I do not seem to be able to get the citations to display at all, it may have accessibility issues for the same reason. I think perhaps they should be moved back to their logical place in the narrative (which is the style I've more normally employed, and seen more commonly) to avoid this problem. David Underdown (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hidden templates removed. I'd prefer they stay out of the body text but I'm willing to come to some agreement if you feel otherwise. Protonk (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns[edit]

The contributor who initially created this article used text directly from Oswald, Mary, They Led the Way, Wetaskiwin: Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame, 1999. Although he may be affiliated with the CAHF, the question of whether or not the author of the text surrendered her copyright to the publisher persists, and there has been no verification of his connection to the organization. (We would need such to be verified either at the website or through communication with the Wikimedia Foundation). See User talk:Cahf and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 April 10 for background. Accordingly, the article has been blanked for further investigation. I personally do not have access to this source, which makes it difficult to determine the degree to which that text may have been used. If any contributors to this article do have access, assistance would be much appreciated. Alternatively, we may need to revise those passages placed by the creator. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well...considering that one remedy for copyvios is to revert to a known good version, we may have obviated the problem. This is a pretty fundamental rewrite. If it is a serious enough problem to go back into the history to delete past revisions, I'll do that, but I would prefer not to. I'll also note that I unfortunately can't verify the text, as I never got a copy of that particular source through inter-library loan. Protonk (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's only a few problematic passages in that one that would need to be revised. Since this has been your project, would you like to do the honors? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Updating to note that it may not be necessary to revise them. A contributor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation has the book and may be able to verify if there are problems with those sentences. I don't believe that it's essential to delete past revisions as long as we do the usual caution against reinstatement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm happy to remove or completely rewrite passages as need be. If someone has the book, it might be even better for them to rewrite them so they may summarize them from that source (otherwise I would be on the edge of superficially rewriting comment). Protonk (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good news. :) The Possessor of the Book indicates that there is no infringement in the passages that remain. Template removed. This one resolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LANCASTER KB-976 FLIGHT JUL 4 1967.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:LANCASTER KB-976 FLIGHT JUL 4 1967.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Emilius Fauquier. 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) 16:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Emilius_Fauquier&oldid=1213272293"