Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Not promoted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories
Nominator(s): Georgejdorner: (talk)

I am nominating this list for A-Class review on behalf of George, who requests that it be assessed against the AL criteria (per these requests and ). Note to co-ordinators: the credit for this list is all George's, I am only nominating it on his behalf as he was having trouble getting the html mark up to work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to Rupert for his assistance. I have never before placed a list for A Class Review.

List is complete. References are both reliable and complete. Please read the Talk page concerning form of the citations.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment some of the first occurences such as Luftstreitkräfte are not wiki-linked depending on how you sort the list by clicking in the column header. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments This looks pretty good, though I've got some comments and suggestion: Georgejdorner (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose Sorry, I'm moving to oppose due to the referencing issue discussed below, and my concerns with the article's lack of an introduction and material which clearly explains the limitations of the data being presented here. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "victories" column appears unnecessary given that the only criterion for inclusion in the list is that the person was credited with exactly 10 victories
 * Indeed, I have toyed with the idea of eliminating this column. It would speed up loading time.
 * The text at the start of the article appears to be boiler plate material - I'd suggest adding a short introductory para which introduces this article, and another para (or two) which discusses how rare it was for pilots to achieve this many kills.
 * The lead is on a template shared by all the World War I victory lists. After some years of editing and debate, Aerial victory standards of World War I was spun off into a separate article just to satisfy curiosity about how victories were accredited.
 * That might be the case, but this article needs to stand on its own feet. The lack of introductory text is off putting. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a list, not an article.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The template is already part of a Featured List. However, I have added two major articles at the top of the page so readers can satisfy their curiosity about victory standards, or about WWI aviation in general. Also added a bit of text addressing your point.
 * Sorry, but that doesn't address my comment at all: I think that the article needs an introductory paragraph explaining its scope (eg, "This is a list of all World War I aces who were credited credited with exactly ten victories..." and so on). Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That will look a bit odd on the other 8 lists where aces won some other number of victories. A note as you wish will appear on all lists because it is on a template.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of Canadians seems surprisingly high, and the number of French pilots is rather low. Do any sources discuss why this might have been the case? (eg, did the French take their highest-performing pilots off combat duties, keep bad records or have awful aircraft?).
 * The only explanation I have ever seen is an observation (usually by a boastful Canadian) that Canadians were grossly over-represented in aerial service, and consequently in the ace lists. On the other hand, the French used the strictest confirmation standards of any Allied air force while fighting under the same handicaps in confirmation that plagued the British, etc. But so what? This is a list, not an analytical article.
 * Any statistical analysis of the data in this article would be useful (if only something like "40 percent of the aces who were credited with 10 kills during the war were British, etc").
 * I have never found any statistical analysis of the data. Given the state of the records after all these years and the unreliability of victory claims, it would probably prove a case of "Garbage in, garbage out".
 * OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the RAAF wasn't formed until after WW1, Adrian Cole shouldn't be listed as having been a member of it here (though it is technically correct, of course, as he did serve with the RAAF after the war)
 * I listed all air forces a pilot belonged to, as a means of showing the influence they had upon aerial history post World War I.
 * A note to that effect should be included then. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I might add, the column header of "Air Service(s)" is ambiguous, but does not limit the listings to WWI.
 * Given that the scope of the article is the World War I combat victories of these aces, it's a bit odd for it to go beyond this. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are all these pilots really universally credited with exactly ten kills? It seems surprising that the number of kills aren't disputed for any of them. Did any have 'half' shares of kills as part of their total.
 * Almost every ace's victory score is disputable. There were no fractionated victory awards during World War I; the rule was either a victory or none. Both of these points should have been clear to you if you had read Aerial victory standards of World War I.
 * If the figures for the various aces are of differing reliability, this should be noted in the article as it's obviously highly relevant. I haven't read that other article, and readers of this list shouldn't have to do so to learn that information (which could be easily summarised here in a paragraph). Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Community consensus is that the discussion of overclaiming of aerial victories should be covered at Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II. I am very much at odds with this, but defer to consensus.
 * Added short para concerning accuracy of list.
 * I might well be missing something, but I can't see that change. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "The scores presented in the list cannot be definitive, but are based on itemized lists that are the best available sources of information. Loss of records by mischance and the passage of time complicates reconstructing the actual count for given aces."Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but seeing as there are significant problems with the content of the primary sources themselves due to the issue of over-counting and differing procedures, that doesn't really help readers of this article. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest including translations of the foreign-language air corps names somewhere in the article.
 * There is context for understanding these foreign names.
 * I don't think that there is, especially are there appear to be direct translations of the names. I'm not hugely fussed about this comment though. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Should the pilots for whom we currently don't have articles be red linked? (eg, are they assumed to be notable?)Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All notable aces on this list have at least a stub. Unlinked names are of those aces who won no honors for their feats.
 * OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose on the page number issue alone. This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your judgment, George, only that you have a misunderstanding of our A-class process. Among other goals, we're trying to introduce editors here to the understandings, compromises and standards that have been worked out at FAC and elsewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments Oppose - until the reference situation is straightened out.
 * George's suggestion to include translations for the foreign-language unit names is a good one; it might be easiest to work that into the lead so it doesn't mess with the table sorting.
 * Suggestion is not mine, but Nick-D's.
 * I agree that the kill count column is redundant and should probably go, though I understand if you want to keep it so it remains in identical format to the other lists in the series.
 * You don't need both 10 and 13 digit ISBNs
 * Last I heard, the ISBN system was still in transition for 10 to 13 digit ISBNs. I include both to expedite retrieval of the books.
 * ISBN-13 was created in 2007 and superseded ISBN-10, and sites like Worldcat handle both. There's no need to include the old 10-digit system.
 * I was not aware that the supersession was complete. The last I heard, the change-over from one to another was still in progress.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you also have the full bibliographical entries below, does it make sense to use the full title in the footnotes?
 * What style are you using for the references? As far as I know (and my experience is limited to Chicago, APA, and MLA), the author's name should always come first.
 * References also need publisher locations.
 * If you had read the Talk page notes as recommended, you would have read the rationale for the form of the citations. The same half dozen people write most of the serious research while in various groupings, and give the resulting books similar titles. A quick browse through the bibliography will show you that. A quick glance at the cites at an unrevised List of World War I aces credited with 15–19 victories will show you the mind-numbing baffling result. Therefore, in the spirit of BE BOLD, I came up with a more intelligible form of citation (in this context) that multi-refs a couple of hundred cites to just ten. If I seem to over-reach with a complete book title included in the cites, it is a quest for clarity.
 * If the problem is that the same authors wrote several books used in the article, see here for a good way to handle it (specifically the books written by Scheina). As for the ref titles, you can use sfn, which links each footnote to the corresponding reference entry to avoid confusion. See its implementation here, for instance. In this case, the best way to differentiate the citations from the same author is to use the "Last name, Short Title, page number" format (see here for an example). You can also use the year of publication instead of the short title, since as far as I can tell, none of the books written by the authors in question overlap. The footnotes should also at least have the page ranges. I'm afraid I can't support an article that does not adhere to any kind of style guide for citations and references. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting referral you left me, but cases are not comparable. Whether you realize it or not, your argument is this article must revert to single ref cites. This means approximately 80 cites at the bottom for this, the shortest of the victory lists. A quick glance at the cites at an unrevised List of World War I aces credited with 15–19 victories will show you the mind-numbing baffling result of single cites done to your preference. The List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories will require about 400 single ref cites. I don't quite understand why you prefer confusion to clarity.
 * If page range is acceptable instead of specific individual pages cited ace by ace, the present multi-refs can be reconfigured.
 * Did you happen to count the number of footnotes in any of those articles? There are 161 in the South American article, 81 in Von der Tann, and 59 in Prinzregent Luitpold. How are those not comparable situations? But no, individual page citations is not a requirement of my argument (though it is the preferred solution). And even if it were, 80 citations is not an unreasonable number. See Albert Speer, which has 170 footnotes, or Nikita Khruschev, which has 270; both are FAs. As in these articles, the citations can be arranged in several columns to avoid excessive length and whitespace. In any case, using the SFN template conveniently highlights the citation when you click on the number in the text, and when you click the linked name, it highlights the corresponding ref in the reference section. I don't know how much more clear you can get. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the citations are repetitions of
 * Franks, et al, 1993
 * Franks, et al, 1990
 * Franks, et al, 1997
 * Franks, Bailey, 1992
 * Franks 2005
 * with the entries repeated numerous times with differing page numbers, how clear is that? And would you consider 400 cites to be reasonable for a list? Especially when they can be reduced to about a dozen?
 * However, what I find most frustrating is that you apparently ignore every bit of information I have supplied to illustrate the present situation. Instead of familiarizing yourself with the unusual circumstances I am presenting, you are apparently dug into a defense of using the present citation system for any and all circumstances, no matter what. In so doing, you are acting out of incomplete understanding.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you use the sfn template, that isn't a problem. It links the citation directly to the correct source and is abundantly clear. Look at the numerous examples I have given you to see how it works. For the purposes of verifying material, citations should be as specific as possible. When the reference is a book, this means page numbers, at least at A-class and higher. If that means 400 citations (though I imagine that's an overstatement, since surely each person doesn't have a whole page to themselves), that is not at all unreasonable. As I pointed out above, there are numerous FAs with more than a couple hundred citations; it's not as unusual as you think. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, almost every listing does indeed have its own page number, as the info was garnered from the same few encyclopedias of bios on WWI aces (which were written by varying lineups of the same few authors). If you had looked at the incomplete list of 260 cites at List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories, you would have found only 16 possible multi-refs. It appears that a standard cite method will result in about 350 cites total for a list of 406 aces. I can reduce that to about 12-15 cites. List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories was twice its present size before I edited it, with most of the extra bytes consumed by citations. The smaller list will load much more easily into browsers.
 * Page size is not a problem - this list is only 12kb, which is quite small. Even the list of 5 aces is around 100kb, which can be reduced significantly if short cites were adopted. Regardless, there are numerous FAs and FLs significantly larger than that. Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Using my method of citation, the list of five victory aces can be halved. Add the one-third of the cites presently missing, and the size will probably balloon despite removal of Notes column.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is only 12kb - even if it doubles, it's still quite small. Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Back when all WWI victories were contained in the same list, previous administrators told me the list should be broken down due to browser loading problems. Even now, the largest of the resulting lists is at over 100,000 bytes and counting, using the prescribed methods of citation.
 * WP:SIZE recommends a maximum size of 50kb.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The bibliography at the bottom is on a template shared by a number of lists.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Parsecboy's comment that a specific reference for each person on the list, including the relevant page number, is needed; this is a standard aspect of A class lists. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see the consensus shaping up to "Be timid".
 * I have come up with a unique solution to an unusual situation. My multirefs will lead the reader to the source as surely and easily as one giving page numbers; any reader can use alphabetical order to find an entry. However, the consensus seems to be that there are no such situations as the one I outlined above, that a creative approach to problems is to be reflexively denied without understanding the situation, that all lists are actually comparable to articles, and that all entries must be standard cut-and-dried products to be top quality. Sadly unoriginal and misguided, but unbeatable. Oh, well, time to go do something useful rather than fiddle about with assessment.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you a question: do you think an academic publisher would accept footnotes that basically say "it's somewhere in this 200-page book, you know how to use an index"? Why do you think Wikipedia should have lower standards? Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * University essays that don't provide page numbers are also likely to be penalized. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, my cites refer the reader to an alphabetic listing in the text of an aviation history encyclopedia, not to an index. This is as easy and sure a method to find source info as page numbers. And, as I keep noting, it grossly reduces the number of cites at article's end.
 * And this is not a university paper; it's Wikipedia. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is only my interpretation, but as per WP:NOTPAPER we don't need to feel too constrained by size issues to begin with, and as pointed out by Parsecboy at 12kb the article is no where near any level that the size would start to be considered a problem; if we accept that size isn't a pressing issue, and nor is the number of cites on the article, why use a fairly uncommon citation system that people are going to be less familiar with, and potentially be presented with a harder, more time-consuming exercise at making use of? For instance, if I was to call one of these books up as an E-book, most of the time I can just type in two or three keystrokes to enter the page number and it would automatically fly straight down to the relevant section - This method takes an indisputably longer time in this scenario, especially when you consider that a pilot's name may have been mentioned under another pilot's bibliography, and thus the search term would drag through those results on the way down to the real main page; entering the page name is cleaner and easier to use, and simply in more common use, I don't see why not to use it. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Back when all WWI victories were contained in the same list, previous administrators told me the list should be broken down due to browser loading problems. Even now, the largest of the resulting lists is at over 100,000 bytes and counting, using the prescribed methods of citation. By using my method of citation, that could be cut in half.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments/suggestions: G'day George, I'm inclined to agree with Nick and Parsecboy regarding the page numbers as they both have considerable experience at the A-class and Featured levels, and - cards on the table - my personal preference would be to supply page numbers. On the other hand you raise an interesting point about limiting the number of individual citations. I can see some benefit in this (although as I said, it wouldn't be my personal preference). I suppose it probably comes down to how easy it would be for the reader to locate the information using your system. If it would be relatively easy, then it is probably okay. Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing what some of the Featured list regulars think about the citation issue (it might pay to ask a couple of their regulars to join in here). If they are happy with it, then it could probably be okay; if not, though, I don't think we should be adopting something at A-class that isn't accepted at FL/FAC as that is just setting articles/lists up for failure at a later date. Anyway, it was not my intention to re-open the citation debate. Apologies. Here is my review:
 * within the References # 2 and 4 appear to be the same, so they should be consolidated like the others;
 * Multi-reffed.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * within the References # 2 and 4 should be formated consistently (e.g. italics for the title as per the other References);
 * Corrected.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * inconsistent presentation: "Page 10" v "p.7"; "page 74" v "p. 70". this should be consistent;
 * Corrected.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * there is a broken ISBN link for "Sopwith Pup Aces of World War 1", which should be rectified;
 * The ISBN works in both Google Advanced Book Search and Amazon Book Search. I am baffled as to why it does not work in WP.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * the styles in the Bibliography and Further reading section are inconsistent;
 * Remedied. ISBN not available for Fighter Aces.
 * in relation to the introduction, I would suggest removing the templates. These make it quite difficult for users to add related content without changing all the articles that use the template. I understand that you wish to maintain some consistency across these articles, but I think that could be counterproductive as it means that the introduction doesn't really focus on this list at all. (I am echoing Nick's comments here). For instance, I suggest adding some sort of  summary of this list, for example "During World War I there were XYZ number of aces credited with 10 aerial victories. Of these, X came from blah, while there were Y and Z from blah..."
 * The templates are a consensus move by prior editors. Also, the suggestion that I rewrite nine introductions to nine lists as a long shot to possibly get one list approved...not an appealing prospect. Especially when all the dropin editors start wrangling.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * regarding further development, or how to handle the introduction, you might get some ideas by looking at related Featured Lists. For example, this might be relevant: List of German World War II jet aces, or some of these: Category:FL-Class military history articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This introduction is linked to Aerial victory standards of World War I which is the sole source for aerial victory standards in ANY war. The FL you mention, List of German World War II jet aces, gives the reader no idea of how the Germans determined aerial victories in World War II. Somehow, this ignorance is the acceptable course.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * additional point: the licences on the image (File:Arthur Roy Brown from imperial war museum.jpg), might need tweaking. Is it possible to provide a link to the file in the IWM collection? I did a quick search on the IWM collection, but couldn't find the image. Also, wouldn't it need a UK licence, rather than a Canadian licence if it was taken while Brown was serving in a UK force? Sorry, I'm not really sure about these points. It might pay to ask User:Grandiose, as they might have a better understanding of this issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I imported the picture of Brown from his linked bio. If the original editor there got it wrong, then I got it wrong, and will have to find a replacement. I should hate to do that, as I think Brown is the pick of this particular list.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * George, to clarify, I'm not saying that you need to replace the image, but that its licencing might just need to be tweaked. For instance, if an Imperial War Museum catalogue number could be found for it, I'm confident that it would be okay. It could then be established if it needs a UK or a Canadian licence. I would do it myself, but I've spent the past couple of hours trying to find the image on the IWM's catalogue and I can't find it. Is any one else able to help in this regard? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found this website which also states that the image comes from the IWM. As such, I've added that link to the source location. Its not a one hundred percent solution, but its probably the best I can do. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just may know more about the assessment process than you assume, Dank. I do note that the assessment process ignores one of the main attributes of hypertext. There is no attempt to evaluate the value of the links in nominated articles. The assessors' concept seems to be that slapping electronic pages into hyperspace suffices, and linkage be damned. There is nothing above that shows me that any assessor bothered to follow links from this list; indeed, there is a suggestion that I should duplicate Aerial victory standards of World War I to spare the reader from clicking a link.
 * In the past, I have pointed out contradictions in the assessment process and been assured that if I changed my writing style, that the contradictions would magically disappear from the assessment process. With that level of "reasoning", is it any wonder I quit submitting articles for assessment?
 * I admit the need for rigor in assessment and high standards. Unfortunately, it seems to have been replaced by rigidity instead. The quality of the coding in a list or article seems more important than the quality of the information. Form trumps function in the assessment process.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.