Talk:Frank Wead/Archive 1

Broken Link to Dedication
The link to the dedication is broken. The text is "This motion picture is dedicated to the men who brought Air Power to the United States Navy. One such man was Commander Frank "Spig" Wead. The flying records he smashed helped him win the lasting respect of his fellow Navy men. The screenplays he wrote helped him win the lasting respect of his fellow writers in Hollywood." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.130.12 (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs Extensive Rewrite
This article is a mess. It contains some great information on Wead, which only covers one fifth of the article. As written most of this article should really be on the beginnings of US Naval Aviation. A third of the article needs to be in the Notes or References section not as part of the main text. The article jumps around too much between time periods and is confusing insofar as any real historial timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.185.70 (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article has grown 2500% in size in the past four months, all from edits by a single editor.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that fact, and it is clearly a labor of love by one person.  I corrected some grammatical and stylistic errors early on, but with around ten new addition edits a day for four months, I finally decided to wait until the editor finished his work to do a comprehensive cleanup all at once.  The 145,000 bytes of new material added since last November are not without interest, but are far, far too detailed and frequently peripheral for an encyclopedic summary article on one such person.  This article as it currently stands contains detail that would be excessive in an article on Abraham Lincoln.  What is needed here is a clear, concise description of Wead's life and activities, and very little of the lists of colleagues, details of ships and their histories, overall military strategies that don't relate primarily and specifically to Wead, and historical background.  The article on Wead's friend and colleague John Ford provides a good example.  It says everything an encyclopedic article should say about its subject and nothing more.  Yes, someone will always add useless, non-encyclopedic trivia to articles, but that's an ongoing general problem.  What's at issue here is whether an article on a person should contain every verifiable detail of that person's life, or should that sort of detail be reserved for a full-scale book on the person.  The editor of this article would be better advised to write a book (he's halfway there now!), or create a website devoted to Wead.  It's hard to imagine a print encyclopedia anywhere accepting an article of this detail on this subject.  Wikipedia is not the place for it, either, in my opinion.  I respect the work that has been done gathering and posting this material.  It's simply too much and not remotely concise enough. Monkeyzpop (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A message for SteveMiamiBeach
SteveMiamiBeach, I know some things about Frank Wead that you did not include in your article, and you certainly have information I do not have. I would like to talk to you about Mr. Wead. For example, there is a master's thesis about Frank Wead (completed in 1996). It has a lot of information about CDR Wead which was new to me, but unfortunately, it is flawed. I would be willing to share information with you, if you will do the same in return. I look forward to your reply. Scratchweaver (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Scratchweaver
Scratchweaver, with what information I have I am certainly willing to discuss with you regarding the life & times of CDR Frank W. Wead. SteveMiamiBeach 10:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Today I saw your reply to my posting. I am very glad to see that you are willing to communicate.  I would prefer to actually speak to you about Commander Wead.
 * One fact I think is correct is that F.W.W. basiclly "set himself up" (with some limitations), when Ceiling Zero was made into a movie. At least, I think that is correct.
 * Do you have a phone number at which I can talk to you? I recognize that giving out your phone number over the internet may be hazardous.  If you would be willing to talk, but not willing to have your number "out there," is there an office I could call? They could either connect me to you, or I could leave my number there.  I looked on Google and I saw there was a gentleman at the University of Michigan in 2005, I think it was.  Is this you?  (I guess that you are no longer there.)
 * (At the risk of duplication, I sent this message a second time. I tried to send it once, waited about an hour, looked on line, and did not see it.  Sorry if this message is a "dupe.")
 * Anyhow, let's talk! David, Raleigh, N.C.  Scratchweaver (talk) Scratchweaver (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply to comments from Scratchweaver
I believe you can reach me via email if you go to http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/coelbert/2003-11/1070206382, my email address is listed on a message (dated: 30 November 2003). That would have been very nice, indeed, if I had attended the University of Michigan...but, not me. Via the email I can send to you my office number so we can begin our introductory discussions. Let me know if this was helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMiamiBeach (talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A new message for Steve Miami Beach
Steve I have tried twice to get in touch with you via the e-mail address that you showed me through the response you left here. Is something wrong? Is that address no longer valid? I would like a response, because I want to talk to you about Frank Wead. If you do not want to talk or communicate any further, would you please let me know through this location. I'm perplexed. ScratchweaverScratchweaver (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)