Talk:Alec Sutherland

Attribution
Text and references copied from No. 5 Group RAF to Alec Sutherland,  See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV concerns
Statements like His enthusiasm for hillwalking, blossomed into mountaineering. He drove a motorcycle from Inverness to Chamonix and climbed Mont Blanc, western Europe’s highest mountain, fulfilling a vow he made when he flew over it. are not good. This is an encyclopedia article, not an obit or a memorial page. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is what the sources say. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth.  Not WP:Peacock.  I relegated the language you cited to a note.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Problem here is word choice ("blossomed" is quite literally flowery language), also DUEness. It reeks of sentimentality. I've modified the language a bit. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Chronology of Military service section
The chronology of the Military service section is either out of sequence, contradictory or rather unusual. The first paragraph mentions his joining the ATC, then the RAF, training and joining Bomber Command. No dates are mentioned. The second paragraph is presumably going back in the chronology to pre-RAF days but states that he was in a precursor rather than the ATC, then on to the RAF again but no mention of Bomber Command. It would be helpful if the order and possible apparent overlaps and contradictions were resolved. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This issue is still outstanding regarding the Air Training Corps and the Air Defence Cadet Corps. The article has him help create a squadron of the former, then join the latter, its precursor, then be assigned to the former (again?). Did he instead help create an ADCC squadron rather than an ATC one or did he make some notably significant contribution when the one organisation was replaced by the other? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Now resolved, on investigation of the sources. I'm a bit concerned though at finding several obvious errors apparently based on inattention to what is actually stated in sources. Some may have been well-intentioned attempts to neaten or copyedit with insufficient understanding of what is being said or of checking what the source actually says. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Please take care
I've noted that there has been considerable activity this article in the last few weeks, by a number of editors, much of which is positive but there has also been a considerable amount which seems to be hurried and inattentive. I've noted numerous intended copyedits which change meaning, misrepresent refs, lose refs, change or introduce spellings or phrasing against MOS:TIES, add superfluous wording or make changes that render the text unclear, incorrect or actively strangely-worded. I'm sure this is well-intentioned but a lot of it appears to be tinkering for the sake of it. At times I've gained the impression that the work is being carried out as an exercise which has been set. Could people please take more care and only make changes which actively improve the article? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
This article is part of Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)