Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caesar Hull/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Caesar Hull[edit]

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have the story of another Rhodesian-born World War II flying ace, Caesar Hull, who left the family farm in Swaziland to join the RAF in 1935. After a few years' concentrating on aerobatics, war intervened, compelling Hull to put his talents to other uses. He played an important role in the fighting around Narvik during May 1940, among other things shooting down four German aircraft in an afternoon over the town of Bodø. For this he won the DFC. The RAF's first Gloster Gladiator ace, he was shot down himself the next day and soon thereafter invalided to England. He returned to action in August 1940 as the commander of No. 43 Squadron RAF in the Battle of Britain—one of only three Southern Rhodesian-born members of "The Few". He was killed in action a week later during a dogfight over south London.

This article passed GA about six months ago and I believe it is at least close to the FA criteria. Any and all comments are welcome, and I hope you enjoy the article. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – thoroughly researched and cited, well paced and balanced; the article is excellently written: the contrast between Hull's gung-ho shout of joy at the declaration of war and his death at the age of 26 is set out with remorseless clarity. Moreover, I think the nominator's handling of the Memorials section shows a restraint that would be beyond many of us. In terms of the FA criteria, in my opinion the article meets them all on prose. I don't presume to judge the admissibility of images, excellent as the existing ones are. A really fine article. But can we have a happy ending to your next FAC, Cliftonian? – Tim riley talk 18:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the very kind words and the support, Tim. I will try and find a more cheerful subject for next time, I promise. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't it "invalided", and not "invalidated"? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! So it is. How embarrassing. Thanks! =) —Cliftonian (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the "defence of Narvik" you refer to here, I hope that won't be part of the FA summary when the time comes. After all, after capturing Narvik on 9 April, it was the Germans who were fighting on the defensive in the Narvik area. The Allies and Norwegians only captured Narvik on 28 May, and at that point the Allies had already decided to evacuate. Hull and others were in effect fighting to hold back German forces who were advancing from further south in Norway, forces that could otherwise have interfered with the evacuation. The rank and file Allied troops knew nothing about this planned evacuation, indeed nor did the Norwegian government, the latter being kept in the dark because the British did not trust they would keep the evacuation secret. Plus the Allied forces on the ground around Narvik were mostly Norwegian, French and Polish, it was further south, around Bodø (where Hull & Co. were sent), that the troops were Anglo-Norwegian. Different fronts entirely, but closely connected, as the southern (Bodø) front prevented German forces from rescuing the trapped German forces further north (Narvik). The article is fine, I just got a tiny bit worried about the future FA summary. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my mistake in the summary above—I've changed it now to say simply "fighting around Narvik". Thank you for the explanation, it is much clearer to me now. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon Manxruler (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another example of the value of Wikipedia's reviewing processes. Going through the PR, GAN or FAC process is not always comfortable, but it don't half polish our drafts up. Kudos to Cliftonian and Manxruler! Tim riley talk 21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • all images are PD (age or own work) with complete source and author information. GermanJoe (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Just a few issues to be cleared up:

  • "Hull grew up between Rhodesia, South Africa and Swaziland": I suspect you don't mean "between" geographically, but rather that his early years were divided among these places. If so you should reword accordingly. This issue occurs in the lead and in "Early life".
  • Link dogfight at first mention
  • "Luftwaffe" is sufficiently used and understood in English not to warrant italicisation. Likewise "Stuka" later on.
  • "headed to the aid" → "heading to the aid" (more idiomatic)
  • "which were adjudged to be heroic" is superfluous. The award of the DFC covers this.
  • Question: is Shangani a town? The WP disambiguation does not mention it, only the river (and the patrol).
  • Shangani is also a small settlement, both at the time and today largely dedicated to farming and mining. See here. I've added it to the disambiguation page and have redlinked it in the article—I'll make a short page later. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concise and informative. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Brian. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, subject to a sources check which, if no one does it in the next couple of days or so, I will do. All the above issues resolved satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and for your help Brian. Hope you're well, take care. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Recusing from coord duties; I have an open FAC of my own right now and besides I can hardly resist another WWII ace article...

  • Copyedited as usual, so pls let me know any issues -- outstanding points:
    • I got what you meant by "because of his ignorance of Afrikaans" in the lead but I think it'd be simpler to just use the wording in the main body, i.e. "because he did not speak Afrikaans". I don't think repeating the phrasing is a prob but if you want to avoid that then I'd just swap 'em.
      • OK, I've gone with using the same wording twice. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Peter Townsend, who joined the squadron with the same level of seniority as Hull" -- bit of a mouthful, "seniority" is an important concept in the military but do we simply mean he was the same rank as Hull?
      • The source (Musgrave) says "Peter Townsend&nsbp;... also joined the squadron, and with the same level of seniority he and Caesar became close friends." The other sources I have seen just mention them joining around the same time and having the same rank. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "nine possibles" -- the usual term is "probables", what does the source say?
      • Source says: "during seventy individual combats, [No. 263 Sqn] claimed at least twenty-six victories with another nine possible, against limited own losses". —Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first of these successfully landed in German-held territory before burning out, allowing the crew and paratroopers aboard to exit safely, but the second spiralled out of control and crashed, killing eight German paratroopers." -- A little confused about just which aircraft are referred to, presumably the Ju 52s but you've already said they were "destroyed", which seemed to be the end of the matter. Let me know and perhaps we can come up with slightly different wording.
      • The problem is that we know that of the three Ju 52s two had paratroopers on board and one had supplies, and that we don't know in which order Hull destroyed them. I have tried to reword: " ... destroyed two more Ju 52s. These German aircraft had been heading to the aid of the hard-pressed German forces fighting around Narvik; one of the Ju 52s was loaded with supplies, while the other two were carrying Fallschirmjäger paratroops. One of the latter aircraft successfully landed in German-held territory before burning out, allowing the crew and paratroopers aboard to exit safely, but the second spiralled out of control and crashed, killing eight German paratroopers." Is this better? —Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hull expressed considerable surprise at this sudden rise in station." -- I assume "this rise in station" means "his elevation to squadron commander"; if so I'd suggest the wording I've just used would be clearer. Also is there any reason given for his surprise, since moving from flight commander to squadron commander was a logical progression?
      • It doesn't say exactly. Perhaps because he had only recently returned to duty after being wounded? The wording is : "As if to emphasise his surprise at suddenly becoming CO, he followed the description of himself as "Commanding No 43 Sqn" in the endorsement of Badger's log with four exclamation marks." I've added this little detail to the article. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On 4 September, Hull led a group of Hurricanes in a decisive aerial victory over a large group of Bf 110s over coastal Sussex." -- I think we need more detail on how this constituted a decisive victory; are there any figures available for victories v. losses, as with the previous engagement? FWIW, I can probably check a source or two myself today or tomorrow...
      • Had a squizz at Stephen Bungay's The Most Dangerous Enemy, probably the best account I've read of the Battle of Britain, and there's no figures re. 43 Sqn on 4 September there. However he does mention that the German formation that Hull and his boys came up against on 7 September comprised almost 1,000 aircraft (around 350 bombers and 600 fighters), so it might be worth mentioning that -- I can supply full reference/page details if you're interested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • By all means, anything that would improve the article has my support. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) The source (Saunders, p. 45) says:
"As with the 1st [of September], the 3rd was less hectic, allowing No 43 Sqn to catch its breath before another big battle on the 4th, when Caesar Hull led the unit into a large formation of Bf 110s over the Sussex coast just after lunchtime. Flt Lt Dalton-Morgan, freshly out of the sick bay, avenged his wounds by sending a Bf 110 down in flames north of Worthing and chasing another until it force-landed in a field near Shoreham. Sgt Jeffreys also downed a Bf 110 in a field, and Hull and Upton seriously damaged two more Zerstorers. A fourth Bf 110 was chased across the Channel by Belgian Plt Off van den Hove d'Ertsenrijck, who sent it crashing into the sea seven miles south of Brighton, although his Hurricane (L1386) was hit in return, and he had to make an emergency landing at RAF Ford. The Messerschmitts massacred by No 43 Sqn that day were from ZGs 2 and 76, although the multiple claims and losses make it difficult, with any certainty to tie up individual 'kills'."
I've fleshed the passage on this out a bit. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure and, aside perhaps from the point immediately above, detail look fine to me.
  • Happy to go with Joe's assessment of the images.
  • Source-wise, notwithstanding a welcome review by Brian or Nikki, I have to admit I'm wondering about the emphasis placed on the Bill Musgrave article, since I don't know his qualifications or how much quality control the B of B Historical Society exercises on material it publishes. Do other reviewers have any thoughts? All others look reliable to me.
    • I personally think the article is okay as it seems to generally match up with the other sources I have seen but I'll bow to consensus on this. I have cut down the references to Musgrave by about half, substituting more stable references to Beedle, Saunders etc. About half of the remaining references to him are backed up by others, and the other half are more obscure, anecdotal-type stuff about his childhood and family. In my search for more sources I also found material for a new section at the end about his character and reputation, which I think fleshes out the article nicely and wraps it up a bit better. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry haven't been back lately, I will look the whole thing over again soon. In the meantime, I think you're on the right track with Musgrave, that is you should probably use him just to flesh out early life and/or anecdotal info but concentrate on your other, more clearly reliable, sources for the operational aspects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cheers Ian. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi again Johnny, I've checked the changes, and see no reason not to promote now. The passage about the Ju 52s is complicated but that's not your fault and I think you've explained it about as well as one could -- I just tweaked a little there, plus a couple of other things we discussed previously. Well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you very much for this Ian. Looks great. Have a top weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • A couple of long quotes in Character that should be shortened or blockquoted
  • FN12, 26, 30: page formatting
  • Why is Osprey wikilinked in Saunders but not Holmes? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a couple prose comments from me.
  • invalided - link, perhaps? Doesn't seem to be a common term
  • In Commonwealth English it is. I think it's clear from context anyway, no? —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section #Early life has 3 mentions of South Africa in three sentences. Might want to find a way to trim it.
  • I removed the second mention as I think most people will know (certainly from context) which Jo'burg we are talking about. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember hearing that World War II is more common in the US, and Second World War is more common in the UK. Perhaps standardize the use?
  • I personally quite like mixing it up to give the prose some variety, but since this article is relatively short we'll go with "Second World War". —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both paragraphs in #Early war start with No. 43 Squadron (and the next paragraph starts No. 263 Squadron). Rather repetititive
  • limp north - people limp. Aircraft don't, at least not in a literal sense. Perhaps another term?
  • I don't see any need to change this one—it's a common usage in a military context when referring to ships, aircraft etc that are damaged and returning to base. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrs Wendy Bryan - Why the "Mrs"? Wendy is generally a woman's name, so per WP:HONORIFIC this is not necessary
  • My intention was to gently make clear why her surname was different, but I guess this isn't really necessary. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Wendy Bryan present - Why not just Bryan, as you've just mentioned her the paragraph above? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the review and the helpful comments Crisco. I hope my replies are satisfactory. Have a great Sunday. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Caesar_Hull/archive1&oldid=1138456832"