Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Ball/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC).

Albert Ball

 * Nominator(s): Georgejdorner & Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Other principal editors Soundofmusicals and Carcharoth are being invited to co-nom.

I am nominating this for featured article because...

Albert Ball cleared Good Article Review two years ago. It has since undergone rearrangement of the material within it&mdash;mostly shifting sentences about to improve chronological flow of the article. There were also some tweaks made when the latest (Pengelly) bio became available as a source. A stable and complete article, it is worthy of being featured as a best example of Wikipedia.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to co-nom per George's invite. The GA and ACR nominations were largely our efforts, and Soundofmusicals and Carcharoth became more heavily involved during and immediately after the latter review. With four regular editors I expect there may well be places in the article that require some polish but a great deal of research and writing effort has gone into it and I think it has the goods -- between George and myself we should have access to the main sources and be able to respond to potential queries. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:2106-21LastFlightof_CaptainBall.jpg: why is this licensed as a government creation? Was Arnold a government artist? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Arnold painted this for the Imperial War Museum. The museum has declared the copyright expired and granted permission for non-commercial use of this picture per http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/870 and http://www.iwm.org.uk/corporate/privacy-copyright/licence.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Support -- All of my points have been answered satisfactorily and I am now happy to add my support. This is a very good article indeed! -- Cassianto Talk   20:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Many tks Cassianto! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * aviation newsletter, Flight International eight days later Was Flight International really a newsletter at this time? And the sentence needs a comma after International.
 * I've substituted "journal", which I think is preferable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What was the second bar to the DSO for? The others have a brief summary in the main body, but nothing is said about this one until the formal award citations section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tweaked. Tks for reviewing, Storm! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting article, his letters reminded me of stories from Boy's Own. I guess that many boys of the time internalized the attitudes purveyed there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, and all credit to George for pointing out his story to me and suggesting we collaborate on it way back when. Tks for your support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Two comments:
 * "Another memorial tablet is present inside the same church, stated in 1930 to be mounted on the north wall": Either it's there or it's not, regardless of what was once stated.
 * Removed "stated in 1930" and added a more up-to-date citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "His father wanted the remains brought back to England for reburial, but the policy put in place by the Imperial War Graves Commission meant that this was not possible. The Commission were working at the time to consolidate the British war graves into fewer cemeteries; 23 British bodies in graves in the location where Ball was buried were moved to the Cabaret Rouge British Cemetery, but at his father's request Ball's grave was allowed to remain.": I'm not following what his father wanted and what the Commission wanted. - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've reconciled this by cross-checking another source. Tks for ce and support, Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, any time. George, I hope this review process hasn't been as unpleasant as you sometimes make it sound. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments - responding to a couple of the points raised by Dank above, as some of the text he was querying was added by me back in 2011.
 * (i) The bit about the memorial tablet in 1930 was part of what I added two years ago. If you look at the talk page (search for '1930'), you will see that I suggested back then a more up-to-date source (the same as the one Ian used). I should have added that source back then, which would have avoided this quibble. Sorry about that.
 * (ii) The bit Dank queries above, starting ""His father wanted the remains brought back to England for reburial" is also part of what I added back in 2011. Ian says above that he 'reconciled this by cross-checking another source' I've looked at the edit Ian made, and that change has gone too far, IMO. Dank, what Ball's father wanted was repatriation from France to England. What the Commission wanted was to keep the bodies in France, but consolidate them into fewer cemeteries (in this case, the nearby Cabaret Rouge British Cemetery which is in France, not the UK). The compromise was to allow Ball's body to stay where it was originally buried (i.e. in the local cemetery's extension for German and other war graves), and also to allow Ball to have a private memorial, rather than the standard Commission headstone. This is a fairly important point, as it is relatively rare for such burials abroad to not have this standard Commission headstone. Dank, does that make things clearer? Ian, does this help explain why I think the text about Ball's father wanting the body brought home is correct and should be restored?
 * Carcharoth, I couldn't access the source you used for your edit, so I checked what Bowyer, as one of Ball's two major biographers, had to say on the subject and rewrote the passage based primarily on that. Even if you vouch for the accuracy of the source you used, I don't think the passage can be restored just as it was because the first line was passive and confusing (who had located Ball's grave?) and there was further confusion owing to Albert Sr's apparent change of mind (first he wanted the body moved, then he didn't). Personally I think it's simpler to leave as is because it does accurately reflect what a key source says -- happy for anyone to double-check that, or voice their opinion, of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian, the first (passive) line was rewritten in an earlier edit - I'm not objecting to that. I'm objecting to your removal of the line about the policy against repatriating the British and Empire dead - this underpins what happened here with Ball's grave. The key sources on the background to this will be the histories of the Imperial War Graves Commission. Those histories will get details like this right, based on the correspondence with Ball's father in the archives kept by the Commission. Without making clear that Ball's father originally wanted the body brought home, you leave the reader with a misleading impression. I will explain on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded there -- my point above is that there was a confusing impression in the text as presented originally, since Ball's father seemed to want his son's body moved, then not moved, without an obvious explanation as to his apparent change of mind. Based on what you've said on the talk page, we may be able to resolve that now but it wasn't clear before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (iii) While looking over the recent edits, I noticed this one that Dank asked be checked. I don't know who originally added that, but I suspect that 'in an advanced state of nervousness' shouldn't be replaced with 'anxiously'. Could someone check the citation for that?
 * (iii) Okay, I have corrected the page numbers within the Bowyer cite.
 * (iii) Either term above would be British understatement to a fault. Ball was temporarily blinded by oil spraying from a holed tank, and left flying helplessly with an engine about to seize.
 * (iii) After landing, Ball could not at first dictate his combat report because he "...was in so overwrought a state...." After thanking God, Ball admitted he thought a dying German pilot might ram him.
 * (iii) The squadron's Recording Officer, Lieutenant T. B. Marson, remarked, "In that event, his nerve failed him in the last."Georgejdorner (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (iv) There are other sources on the talk page referring to minor points (a sentence or two here and there) that I had intended to add at some point. I should have done so earlier, and I'm now not sure whether to return to this article and do that, or not. Really, the discussion from two years ago never came to a proper conclusion. Ideally, that would have been sorted before this FAC. So I'm in a bit of a quandary as to what to do now. Would there be any objections if I tied up those loose ends?
 * Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever Ian wants to do with those is fine by me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am certainly open to improvements.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you. I've put more detail about the 'anxious/overwrought' wording on the article talk page. I will do my best to get back to the earlier material on that talk page as soon as possible (either tonight, tomorrow night, or next week). That may give time for Ian to comment as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've proclaimed to all involved in the writing/editing of this article, during reviews I'm pragmatic rather than idealistic, mainly because stability is always part of the criteria. There's always more detail out there that can be added in and there's been plenty of time over the years to make tweaks to this article; no WP article is ever 'finished'. Therefore if something in the article under review is demonstrably inaccurate according to reliable sources, it should be altered or excised. If OTOH we're simply talking further detail, well I think it's a fairly well-detailed/nuanced summary of his life, career, and legacy as is and such things can wait until after the review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian, what I had to say in reply turned out to be longer than expected, so I'll drop a note on your talk page (and ping George as well) rather than write at length here (i.e. I don't want this to distract from this review). But, the point George has made on the article talk page about the 'anxious/overwrought' wording is important - I think you need to look at that and comment there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for George to word that as he sees fit -- as I say, clarifications/corrections may need to be made as necessary, that's not an issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

I have checked all Pengelly cites. With minor corrections, all of them check out except (68). That one, to my way of thinking is rather "air ware". There is no mention of directorship in the cited pages, and only author's speculation concerning Ball's motivation.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Am in process of checking Bowyer cites.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, all,

As it turned out, my copy of Bowyer is a newer paperback copy. The original cites were from the 1977 hardback. To correct any errors, I had to switch all page numbers to this 2004 edition.

All Bowyer cites are now corrected.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been keeping an eye on this review despite not 'dropping in' lately. Tks for all that work George; I only had access to the 1977 edition of Bowyer when we first worked on this article and obviously the paging is different to the 2004 edition -- that was a labour of love on your part! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if I am going to motormouth elsewhere about the necessity of checking links, I have to back it up here.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any outstanding issues at this point. I have been able to check about 80% of the cites back to their sources. ODNB is the major source I was unable to check out.
 * Double-checked ODNB, just a couple of tweaks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a plain (and rather awkward) amendment to develop an unadorned account of the 5 May 1917 near-ramming.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks George, I changed a word and trimmed a bit but in the main I think your clarification of what actually happened was just the right thing to do -- definitely worth it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.