Talk:R. J. Mitchell

Untitled
The Supermarine Walrus was a flying boat, not a seaplane. The distinction between the two types being the means of water bouyancy. If the hull rests upon the sea surface then it is a flying boat - that is a boat hull with wings/engines etc. If the fuselage is held up by one or more floats (or pontoon) then it is a seaplane (sometimes floatplane). I note that the Wikipedia is split in agreeing if the general category is seaplane, with the subdivision being flying boats and floatplanes, or if flying boat and sea/floatplane are indeed separate. My point is that the article mentions both seaplane (especially the SB record breakers) and flying boats. The Walrus is the latter. Plus it was an amphibian... Which could be catapult launched... From a ship...LessHeard vanU 21:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

About the Type 317 Bomber
Does anyone have any information about this? I read about it in "The Guinness Book of Air Force Blunders" by Geoffrey Regan. He proposes that this cancelling this design in favour of the Short Stirling was a major blunder by the Air Ministry in WWII. --80.47.107.70 13:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * At the time Supermarine had their hands full in developing the Spitfire, and it is unlikely in the circumstances of 1939-41 that they had any capacity that could be spared for a bomber that would with hindsight almost certainly have been eventually supplanted by the excellent Lancaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.75 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Supermarine Spitfire Protoype K5054 Unpainted.jpg
The image Image:Supermarine Spitfire Protoype K5054 Unpainted.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone missing
I find most of the "Personal Life" chapter inappropriate in tone or style for wikipedia.

For example: "recognition needs to be made" or "need to be recognised and duly acknowledged".

Also many 'facts' are more like POVs: "The Battle of Britain was won by a superior aircraft manned by superior pilots". Just reading the Battle of Britain wikipedia entry gives a much more complex view of the battle and makes straight forward statements like that very questionable.

Further the unattributed quote "If it wasn't for that invention, we may all be speaking in Germanic tongue right here, right now?" seems to POV and even more inappropriately it sounds like an English person expressing his/hers POV though Wikipedia is not supposed to be nationally biased.

And nothing seems to be attributed to known reliable sources here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.94.173.129 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed the relevant text, it should have been spotted earlier. The rest of the article appears fairly neutral but there are odd NNPOV phrases that stand out ('Mitchell's genius' for instance). Perfectly fine if someone else said it but it is not sourced as are a few other details. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    13:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Article issues

 * I changed the "Bibliography" section to a "Works cited". Bibliography is sometimes used in biographies (although discouraged) as works or publications.
 * MOS:NOTES states: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications").
 * The "External links" seems to have grown (eight links) to a WP:link farm proportion. Possibly some of the links can be incorporated into the article or trimmed by someone more familiar with the subject. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links including WP:ELBURDEN, and ELPOINTS #3 indicate that a long list of links are not desired as contrary to policy.
 * The link to the R.J Mitchell primary school facebook page seems to be outside the scope of relevance and certainly mention is better served in the "Legacy" section. The link "An interview with Gordon Mitchell about his father (2005)" might also be considered as well as some others. Otr500 (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Off-topic links have now been removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

bollocks vs. balls
This edit caught my eye. It changes a word in a cite-supported quotation. The supporting source cited is not verifiable online -- what may be a different issue of the cited book isn't previewable online in Google Books. I found an uncited source which is verifiable online here which supports the previous wording. I'm reluctant to follow this up with a revert citing the new source. I'm letting the edit stand for now and ignoring the uncertainty raised by the alternative source I found. I'm mentioning this here in case other editors want to follow up on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)