Template:Did you know nominations/Hubert Le Blon

Hubert Le Blon

 * ... that French racing motorist and aviator Hubert Le Blon (pictured) represented the USA in the 1906 Vanderbilt Cup?
 * Reviewed: David Gunness

Created by Chienlit (talk). Self nom at 12:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)




 * ALT1 that Hubert Le Blon wife was the riding mechanic (pictured) during the 9+ hours of the 1906 Targa Florio in Sicily?


 * ALT2 that the 1910 Humber monoplane (pictured) was designed by French aviator Hubert Le Blon?  but was completed after his death in an air crash


 * Symbol question.svg I would have passed this on length, newness and the original hook, but I see the article has several tags that need attention. I would like to suggest ALT3, with the original image, but it would need an extra citation: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT3 ... that French racing motorist and aviator Hubert Le Blon (pictured) met a dog while representing the USA in the 1906 Vanderbilt Cup?
 * ALT3 is unsourced, it's a photograph of a dog being a dog. It is not 'meeting' Le Blon. Chienlit (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The caveat tags do not affect the material length of the article or the claims of the hooks. Two of them denote conflicting sources (was he/wasn't he in the Paris-Berlin?) and Le Blon Freres clearly states that it is likely, but we have no online confirmation. The intention was to demonstrate caution while the article is under construction, but the caveats can be removed if necessary for DYK. Chienlit (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the issues raised by the tags need to be resolved, either by finding suitable references or removing the unsourced information. It isn't enough just to remove the tags. "Did you know/Reviewing guide" states: "Check the article to make sure there are no dispute templates. Any such issues need to be resolved before the article is used for DYK. Also, check the recent edit history to make sure that there wasn't a dispute template that was removed without fixing the problem." — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that all the tags are fixed. I have removed the unsourced O/R claim, added two refs to support another, clarified the wording so that contradictory sources are clearly noted and accepted the final reference. Regards Chienlit (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Here are my comments:
 * The article was created on 17 January 2013. As of 22 January 2013, five days later, the article was 5,413 characters long, making it of sufficient length. However, referencing might be a problem as there are a number of "citation needed" and "dubious – discuss" tags.
 * The images appear to be properly licensed.
 * The main hook, ALT 1 and ALT 2 are of appropriate length.
 * The main hook appears to be properly referenced.
 * ALT 1 is not properly referenced. Footnote 4 states that Madame Le Blon "regularly accompan[ied Le Blon] as riding mechanic in his races", but says nothing about her being his riding mechanic at the 1906 Targa Florio. There is a photograph with the caption "Hubert and Mme Le Blon at 1906 Targa Florio driving Hotchkiss 35 hp" but it is not referenced and also does not state that Madame Le Blon was acting as Le Blon's riding mechanic.
 * ALT 2 is also not properly referenced. Footnote 13 states: "Hubert Le Blon was a racing motorist who later took to aviation with Leon Delagrange, but was killed in a crash in Spain on 2 April 1910, soon after the machine he designed for Humber was exhibited at the Olympia Show. It embodied a number of original design features but interest in it died with its creator." It does not say anything about the aircraft being completed after Le Bron's death. Also, I am not sure whether the source is footnote 13 can be regarded as a reliable third-party source.
 * — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops, Fixed. - ALT1 ref now added, somehow got lost in the edit/research process. Thank you. Chienlit (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, Fixed. - ALT2 shortened to match ref and facts. I misread the original. Article also corrected. Thanks. Chienlit (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, ALT 1 and ALT 2 are now properly referenced. However, I think the citation tags in the article need to be dealt with and not simply removed. See my comments above. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK Fixed. See my comments above, just below your comments above. Chienlit (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png All issues appear to have been addressed: reviewer needed to see whether the article and hooks are now ready. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I will pass the article provided the single remaining "dubious – discuss" in the "Results" section under "1901" is dealt with. There are a few other things that could be fixed (see below), but I don't think these should affect the appearance of the hook in DYK. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the references are lacking page or paragraph references. For example, footnotes 7 and 8 are citations to books, but no page numbers are given.
 * In the "Results" section, I think the footnotes should be next to the information that they reference (for example, next to the years or the event names) rather than gathered at the bottom of the table. (I moved it from the top because it looked rather strange there.)
 * Full citations should be given for the works mentioned in "Other sources". (See what I did to the citation in footnote 7.)
 * Archive URLs could be added to avoid link rot.
 * In general, fuller information should be provided for many of the citations. For example, footnote 2 (which merely states "Motorsport Memorial, Profile of Hubert Le Blon") should have information such as the publisher of the website and the date of the webpage accessed added to it.


 * Symbol question.svg Until the dubious tag is fixed, this article shouldn't go anywhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Crisco - Tag is Fixed - see Le Petit Journal bullet below. Chienlit (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi SMUconlaw
 * Le Petit Journal 30 June 1901 - Berlin Arrivals and Le Petit Journal 01 July 1901 - Final Results do not mention him. Only an obituary in the New York Times makes a 6 word claim, 9 years after the event, 3,000 miles away. This is then repeated in 2 internet sources. Thus I have removed the 1901 Paris Berlin result, and my "Dubious" template. Chienlit (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC) p.s. If the 'dubious nonsense' had beeen in a lesser publication than NYT I would have disregarded it sooner.


 * Georgano 'Complete Encyclopedia' reference - Page id added. (Encyclopedia's are in alphabetic sequence, Le Bl etc) Chienlit (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Georgano cite now replicates the stated example in footnote 7. Chienlit (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Archive URLs could be added to avoid link rot. - I have no idea what this means. Can you please explain, or show, or point. Thanks Chienlit (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relevant refs moved to yearly results rows in table. Others converted to external links. Chienlit (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Archive URLs (archiving your links using WebCite or the like) is in no way a requirement of DYK, and you can safely ignore this request unless it is something you wish to do. Basically, it saves the referenced material somewhere that it will always be available. It is also not required for Good Articles or even Featured Articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you BlueMoonset. I don't use any editing tools, I just edit the HTML. Chienlit (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Footnote 2 does not 'merely state...' It provides a live link to http://www.motorsportmemorial.org/ Do you want me to repeat www.motorsportmemorial.org so that it displays on the article? Can you please add a pointer to the relevant WP advice, or to some examples. Chienlit (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Full citations should be given for the works mentioned in "Other sources". - "Other sources" clearly states Cited by Motorsport Memorial. and Cited by Darren Galpin of Team Dan:. Thus, ergo, this means that, I don't have access to their sources, so I need guidance - Should I go through a meaningless charade of manually creating pseudo citations, or should they be completely removed from the page thus diluting the information content, or is this demand pushing the envelope, or is there some other response? Chienlit (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, "[t]here are a few other things that could be fixed ... but I don't think these should affect the appearance of the hook in DYK. Thus, I'll copy the above discussion to the article talk page and respond to them there. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

All the tags have been dealt with, so I am happy to give an unconditional pass to this article. (As I mentioned above, my other comments don't affect the appearance of the hook in DYK, so I'll copy the discussion on them to the article talk page.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svgal of the sources in this article don't look reliable to me. Specifically I mean the sources cited in the following footnotes: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 17. Maybe you could tell us a little about those sources and why you think they are reliable.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Not seeing any progress. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What? I thought this already had an unconditional Symbol confirmed.svg - see above. If you want my comments on the Carabinieri questions they will be answered piecemeal below, as I check them.
 * That's a lot of aspersions to cast in a single sentence, without a single word of clarification. Carabinieri - please could you be a little less cryptic and itemise your aspersions. Thank you. Chienlit (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reworked 1901, where note 9, TeamDan, a perfectly good source that was used to 'prove a negative' because of the dubious credibility of the New York Times regarding 1901. TeamDan is now supported by two incontrovertible contemporary sources - ref names "Le Petit Journal 30 June 1901" and "Le Petit Journal 1 July 1901". Chienlit (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 2 - Motorsport Memorial is a well produced site that serves as a starting point for its subjects. It enhances its credibility by listing its sources and by leaving gaps where they are incomplete. The list of sources is included and clearly labelled in the article. Please note - In articles about obscure Frenchmen who died young, did nobody any harm and neither told lies professionally nor claimed direct connection to the supernatural, there is inevitably a lack of single source, anglophone, comprehensive content. Chienlit (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 4 Grace's Guide, is an excellent, well produced, non-commercial, comprehensive site of referenced information from the 'Brass era'. Their sources are cited, extensive, documented, contemporary period publications and manuals, often photographic, often vital. (see Ateliers de Construction Mecanique l'Aster). Sometimes they cite Wikipedia. ... and when I have questioned them by email they have both explained or removed (once) detail. Chienlit (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 3 HistoBleriot, Brevet Numero 38 is primarily a French site that produces short profiles of their national heroes, it is never more than a starting point for research, but is conscientiously produced. It is the only site that lists his birthplace in Oise, so is included with a caveat.Chienlit (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 5 Grace's Guide, as above. It clearly cites 'Motoring Annual and Motorist’s Year Book 1904'. I don't see any valid reason for casting aspersions and Symbol possible vote.svg based on this article.
 * Ref 6 Targa Florio. There is nothing wrong with this Italian site that extensively documents a much loved Italian race. Carabinieri - please explain why it doesn't look reliable. Why you think it throws the article and the DYK hook into doubt? Please state which parts you know to be untrue. Chienlit (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 6 New York Times. A reference source of such repute that it is surely beyond criticism, apart from one nonsense factoid and the fog of remote newsrooms. The size of the obituary and the tone of the descriptions demonstrates Le Blon's reputation. I believe that this source was correctly used with clear caveats. Chienlit (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Intriguing, as I write this I have just been informed that Société Parisienne is on DYK, now. ... but how can that be, it uses TeamDan and Graces Guide as reference sources. Should I ask for it to be removed immediately because the refs are dubious? Carabinieri - I beg you to do your duty, get it off the front page now, before innocent people read it. Chienlit (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ergo - I'm fed up with this. I will complete the rest of the responses after somebody clarifies (clearly) what is wrong with the article and hook according to DYK rules. Chienlit (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why you are so offended by what I wrote. According to WP:RS, self-published sources should not be used in articles. Those sources look like they might be self-published to me. Your comments haven't really changed this impression. None of the footnotes I listed above cite the NYT. The fact that Societé Parisienne ran on DYK is somewhat problematic, but doesn't change anything about the merits of this article.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have checked out the main source for this article (reference 1) and it looks okay to me, it's maintained by an author who has written two books on the topic, published by a reputable source. Haven't checked out all the other sources yet. Gatoclass (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that the guy published books on this topic doesn't change the fact that the website is self-published, especially since he himself says on the site that it's more of a hobby than a profession. I think WP:SPS is pretty unequivocal about this.--Carabinieri (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * SPS states that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. IMO that is an accurate description of the situation here. So I still think the source is valid. I've yet to take a close look at the other sources. Gatoclass (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am failing and removing this nomination: there has been no progress on this for over a week, and the sources are certainly of dubious quality to be referencing information which will appear on the main page. If anyone wishes to appeal the decision, they are more than welcome.  Harrias  talk 16:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)