Talk:Bloody April

Split Infinitives
For goodness sake who is still worrying about these? It is indeed possible to write a very bad, clumsy, unclear sentence that incidentally includes one or more verbal phrases with adverbs between the "to" and the particle comprising an English infinitive. It is equally possible to write clumsy sentences containing many other sentence structures that are also in themselves perfectly grammatical. No need to "correct" a split infinitive that is NOT unduly clumsy, and which clearly means what its author intended. Do we need (or have we already got?) something about this in the MOS?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

How red was the Red Baron's first D.III?
The first "red" Richthofen Albatros had a thin red wash applied over its plywood fuselage. This was done so carelessly that the national markings were obscured! The wings, however, were apparently (initially at least) still in camouflage, at least any red colouring was much more carefully applied, so that it left the outline of the black cross markings clear. -Nor does any overpainting of the wing fabric show up as "different" to the wings of the other aircraft in the lineup. Just look at the picture! While monochrome photographs can be misleading - and all the wings are catching the light at a similar angle, it is at least sufficiently doubtful that the Albatros in the picture IS actually in an "overall" red finish for us to omit the word from the caption. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Largely UNsuccessful?
Not according to the source cited - which is closer to the summary given in the box to the right. From the "air" point of view, the German fighter squadrons were successful in shooting down British aircraft, but unsuccessful in preventing useful cooperation between British squadrons and ground troops. And vice versa, of course. On the other hand we might omit the whole phrase with little loss, since the essential point is made repeatedly. WWIReferences (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)