Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World War I aces credited with more than 20 victories/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [1].

List of World War I aces credited with more than 20 victories[edit]

Nominator(s): Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because, after much work (with major help from User:Georgejdorner), I believe it qualifies. I have checked the FL criteria and it seems to hold up. A recent peer review offered some comment, which I used to improve the list, but such little comment that it may have not needed much improvement. Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Citations should be formatted properly. Some miss publishers and accessed dates.
  • Legends should be at the top, not the bottom
  • Is "If All is selected, expect the page to load very slowly, or even crash." necessary?

—Chris!c/t 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've cleanup up the refs, moved the legend to the top, and removed the "if All..." statement, which is no longer applicable anyways. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Chris!c/t 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there is a sortable list with all the aces, with the same level of detail, why do the sublists exist? Either the "all" list should be deleted/merged as being too long and redundant, or the sublists fail 3b and should not exist. It currently fail this: "...does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article".
  • Can the KIA/MIA/DOW asterix be changed to a dagger or other symbol, to avoid any chance of confusion with the awards asterix. I would make them clickable too, as the list is so long and there is so much footnote info (scrolling continuously back and forth is annoying for readers).YobMod 13:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But transcluding cannot be used to simply bypass the 3b criterion, otherwise all lists that should not be seperate articles could become FL. Transcluding the lists still means it largely recreate material from another article. As long as the "all" list exists, this list is redundant, and according to the criteria cannot become a FL. I could cut up a FL discography into "albums", "singles" and "eps", and tranclude them all into the parent, but that likewise should be opposed for failing 3b, rather than giving 4 FLs. Another example is our TV series FLs. For the main list and the season specific lists to become featred, they have to do more than just recreate the info and transclude it back to the parent list. If a parent article is desired to link all the lists together or for a topic, it should be written as an article using summary style - i'm certain a GA could be written on this topic.YobMod 13:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I understand. But I wonder, would it be better to delete the all list, or replace it with some sort of summary text? I'm thinking along the lines of List of Medal of Honor recipients/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think summary text. Even if only a stub with links or short paragraphs for each sub-list, it gives a starting point for expansion and links all the similar articles for interested readers.YobMod 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the "All" page, since without the actual lists it would just be a rehash of the base page List of World War I flying aces. Any attempts at summaries of each list can be made there. I've changed the killed * to a dagger. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as my concerns were met.YobMod 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment very nice list. I think the Template:Wwi-air should be taken out of the table and put at the end of the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops, if accidenlty deleted the table close bracket. Should be fixed now. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • question would it be possible to separate the notes from the citations? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a line break, and removed notes that weren't strictly applicable. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article page of Fulco Ruffo di Calabria indicates that he received 1 gold, 2 silver and 4 bronze Medals of Military Valor. The legend explains that an * denotes a second presentation (a bar is added) of the same award. In the table Fulco Ruffo di Calabria is listed with MMV(Gold), MMV**(Silver), MMV****(Bronze) which would mean that he received 1 gold, 3 silver and 5 bronze. I think something is wrong here or not? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, it happened with this award for a few aces. I've fixed them all. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more issue: for every FLC I created citations for every item I listed under the "Notes" column was required. If this is a rule than it should be applicable here too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the hopelessly small text for the key? I had trouble reading it, and I have perfect vision. Try using this code in the first line of the table instead of all the superscript tags: style="font-size: 90%" (make the number smaller if need be).
  • Isn't MOH is the more common abbreviation for the US Medal of Honor? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took the key from List of RAF aircrew in the Battle of Britain. I'm not sure why "sup" was chosen. I'll replace it with style="font-size: 90%". You're right, MOH is the generally accepted abbreviation. I'll fix it. I don't think there is an official abbreviation for most of the awards, including MOH, so I had to make them up. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Bump) Have I addressed all the problems above, or have i missed anything? - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - very interesting subject, especially as we head towards 11/11...
  • Not sure why the Nieuport is lead image when this is about aces, and you have an ace image underneath it?
    • In searching for images for the article, I could find none that both represented the pilots and the act of a WWI dogfight. I chose two images to represent the different aspects, perhaps in this case no images is better than a confusing one.
  • I think a link to World War I seems reasonable somewhere in the lead.
    • Now linked.
  • Particularly in preference to linking France... but that's cool.
    • See above
  • I think, if diacritics are available, they should be used. Pégoud deserves his accent!
    • Fixed that instance. all the rest should be correct.
  • "At the beginning of World War I air combat had not been invented, aircraft were for reconnaissance only" - I would replace the comma with "so" or "and".
    • Replaced it with "and".
  • "different air services had different methods of assigning credit for aerial victories, and the actual number of air victories required to officially qualify as an "ace" has varied" - tense change.
    • removed the has to fix.
  • "term 'ace' " or "term "ace""?
    • changed 'ace' to "ace".
  • "10 kills" - literally or ten aircraft shot down?
    • ten aircraft shot down. A kill (pilots death) is not required, or part of it. Fixed.
  • You link German and French, not British or United States or Russian - is there a reason for this?
    • Nope, linked all now.
  • "The term "ace" was never used officially by the British." - this is really interesting, but how do I verify it?
    • I know I read it in one of my sources, but I'll have to find it and inline it right after the statement (I'm surprised i hadn't already). It's now cited.
  • Other, similar lists have "flying" in the title, i.e. "... flying aces ..." (e.g. List of World War I flying aces)- is there a reason why this doesn't?
  • Improve alt text, you could include the colour of the aircraft for instance.
    • Reworded.
  • It seems that abbreviations are in small text. No need, just makes it less accessible.
    • Removed font sizing from tables.
  • Find the appropriate link for "bar" in the medal context.
    • Added link.
  • "exceptionally meritorious service" presumably this is a quote?
  • The quotes in the Notes need citations.
    • Direct quotes cited.
  • Surprised that not all honours have notes, like "Order of the Bath", you must be able to come up with a succinct description of that?
    • All missing notes added.
  • The notes for WB have a full stop, the only one in all the notes. Be consistent.
    • Fixed, removed full stop.
  • Composition prose is five paragraphs, mostly single-sentences paras. Work on improving this, merge them and more importantly, reference them.
  • "two seated"- hyphenate.
    • Fixed.
  • "most renowned of which" - prove it.
    • Can't, reworded.
  • Should Austria-Hungary be separated with a hyphen or an en-dash? Be consistent.
    • Fixed, removed full stop.
  • "Air Service(s)" - why is Service capitalised?
    • Because early air forces (in WWI usually called Air Services, were part of the name and capitalized, e.g. United States Army Air Service. If its improper, I can un-cap it.
  • Where do you say what RNAS means? Check other abbreviations that are used without explanation.
    • Fixed, spelled out only instance.
  • Not sure notes, air services, names should be centrally aligned.
    • Removed center alignment from table
  • Why are some air services in italics, others not?
    • I'm not positive, because it's been there since the list was created years ago, but I believe it's because of WP:ITALICS#Foreign terms, "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialised English.". I can undo it if this is wrong.
  • "Leading balloon buster of war." this needs explanation as to what a "balloon buster" may be.
    • Linked to applicable article.
  • "MC*." - full stop not needed.
    • Removed full stops from all notes.
  • Why do some pilots have up to three citations for their count while most others have nothing specific?
    • The citattions are for counts that are disputed. The rest are generally considered correct.
  • Ref 7 doesn't need a full stop.
    • Fixed.
  • Ref 9 needs to use en-dashes.
    • Fixed.
  • What makes [2] a reliable source?

Interjectory note:

This site lists its link to references in the left hand sidebar on the home page.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes [3] a reliable source?

Interjectory note:

The World War I aviation historians who run the site have listed their sources under the misleading heading of "Links". The Aerodrome Links can be found at http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/. The link to references is found on that page; it is http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/index.php?ax=list&cat_id=9.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • First two books in bibliography have same ISBN number.
    • Fixed. Must be a typo in the copy in my library, it had the incorrect one on the inside page, and the correct one on the back cover.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should you be consistent when italicising foreign terms, for instance you italicise Pour le Merite in the caption but not in the table?
  • bar or Bar? And no need to overlink it.
  • for the display of highest valour and skills in the face of an exterior enemy - is this a quote?
  • Noticed that the PLM has a reference, why not the others, especially where you claim "highest ... order" or "highest ... award"?
  • Is "Red Baron" referenced anywhere?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fix the Pour le Merite ital, and the bar linking and capitalization, working on the Award refs, most of the "highest" stuff was pulled of the individual award pages, but if I can't easily find a ref, I'll reduce the note to "military/civil award of X country" and the like. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 22:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Endashes are required in the page ranges used in citations.
    • Fixed
  • The Croix de guerre is generally abbreviated as "CdeG", but up to you.
    • Changed abbrev.
  • Single, stand-alone sentences should be merged with paragraphs.
    • Done.
  • I would stear away from the abbreviation of "WWI" in the prose.
    • Fixed
  • Citations are inconsistent, with some having full stops, and others not.
    • Fixed
  • Not all of the citations are formatted correctly.
    • I fixed a few minor things, but are there any blaring errors still existing, I can't see any.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral – while the majority of the issues I raised have been addressed, I do not quite feel I can support this article. The reason for my hesitancy is predominantly based on the concerns raised by Ian Rose, several of which I have considered myself to be an issue when previously reviewing this article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention in Despatches is present in the key, but not a single ace has this in their note section.
    • The key is used across several lists, it is used in at least 1 of them. Should I create a separate key for each?
      • No, it would probably be best to keep the lists consistent. However, it is highly likely that a number of these top British/Commonwealth aces were Mentioned in Despatches (for example, prior to 1943, one had to be MID before they could be awarded the DSO), just that it may be a little harder to find out exactly which ones were. It might be an idea to drop the MiD from the lists althgether. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interjected note: I was not aware of the significance of Mentioned in Dispatches when I was doing the data entry on this list. In the future, I will keep this in mind. Thank you for the information. As the saying goes, "It's a good day when you learn something."

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to fix the above. More (mostly reference issues) to come. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife:
  • The alphabetical links don't work, and given that the table is default sorted by victories they seem somewhat unnecessary.
  • Why is the "and" italicised for Fonck?
  • Coppens and Caldwell should probably be denoted as the leading Belgian and New Zealand(er?) aces for consistency.
  • Ref 22 should ideally be expanded upon, either to give alternative figures such as those in refs 20 or 21, or to explain the uncertainty surrounding the figures, similar to ref 25.
  • I'm not too familiar with conventions of this sort, but does "The Red Baron" belong in the name column?

Overall, looking very good. WFCforLife (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • How do the alphabetical links not work? If I sort the names, I get William Melville Alexander first and Kurt Wüsthoff last. The and was probably italicized for emphasis, I'll de-emphasize. Notes added to Belgian and New Zealander aces. Other nicknames arn't mentioned, but "The Red Baron" is so universally know, that I think it merits mention. I'll work on Ref 22. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 04:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to the box underneath the main table, that links to A B C D and so on. The other links (Legend, Awards, Allies and Central powers) are very useful, just wondering if there was any way of getting rid of the letters. WFCforLife (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, I didn't notice that. I removed the A-Z links. And I fixed the Ref 22 problems. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 19:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a quick read of some of the leading aces' articles, I see what you mean about the Red Baron. I can see why ref 22 was originally left as "disputed". Nonetheless, it was a worthwhile expansion, and you've done it very well. WFCforLife (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support. WFCforLife (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Given this nom is for Featured status I have concerns about the presentation and, more importantly, about the verifiability of the information here, but will refrain from opposing outright until I've had a response just in case I've missed anything.

  • Presentation/style-wise, there's still tidying up to be done:
    • Inconsistency in citation formatting, e.g. "pg." (which equates to "p.") and "pp." - I think the most common way of denoting page references is "p." and "pp.", and these should be used here.
    • Capitalising citations #7 and #15; even if the titles are all upper case in the references, simply capitalising each word is sufficient for here.
    • Since there are a fair few footnotes mixed with the citations, I think you'd be better off separating them into Footnotes and Notes (or Citations), though I won't oppose outright on that point.
    • In Bibliography, the title of Kennett's book needs all words capitalised, likewise Toliver in Further Reading.
  • Referencing-wise, I have three main issues:
    • I can't see where the total for each ace is cited or, alternatively, where a blanket statement is made along the lines of "All figures are based on such-and-such source, unless otherwise noted". For data which is so often disputed, you need to spell out who or what you're relying on for your figures. Further, citations #20 and #21 both say the figure in the table is disputed, but give no source of the original number, nor of the alternative.
    • I don't generally push particular sources but I would have liked to see Shores/Franks' Above the Trenches (British/Empire WWI aces), Above the Lines (German aces), and Over the Front (US/French aces) utilised. I know you've employed the Osprey books by the same authors, which is helpful, but the aforementioned titles would certainly add still greater weight to the referencing - plus I see no book in the Bibliography for sources of German and French aces, only British/Empire and US. Also, including the Nieuport book makes things look like they were employed for convenience not comprehensiveness; this was just one of the relevant aeroplanes involved.
    • I can't really accept TheAerodrome as a reliable source at Featured level. Despite its sober tone and excellent presentation, it's still not an official source nor does it generally cite where it gets its figures. In any case, with so many printed works to choose from, I can't see the need to reference it anyway. By all means include it as an External Link for convenience, but it shouldn't be relied upon like the book sources.
  • Generally this is good work, but I'd like the above comments addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe I've fixed the reference style issues. I'm not now working on adding sources for each score. I don't have any of the books you mentioned (although if I can find a copy to buy online, I plan to), so I have to use others. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 07:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found a copy of Above the Lines, and have been using the other Osprey books I have to source each score. I should soon be able to have a source for each one. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Trevor. Let me know if you can't find anything you need; though I don't own any of the titles mentioned, I have access to a number of them. Also, aside from the hard copies, I find GoogleBooks and Amazon have a number of Ospreys available for online preview. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Ian Rose's concerns: The Aerodrome is run by the same aviation historians we also rely on in print. So why are they unacceptable online, and acceptable in print (I ask for the zillionth time)? If online information cannot be deemed to be accurate, then what are we doing building Wikipedia?

Nor do I understand Ian's preference for older books as being better sources than newer ones. Especially if they are being written by the same authors. Don't you think that the authors may have learned a bit more in the intervening years? The Aerodrome forums reflect the fact that the research continues.

Lastly, I do not believe there is any other listing as complete as The Aerodrome's listing of aces. Except for ours. Certainly, without The Aerodrome, we would be bereft of most or all of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces. Now I realize some of these nationalities do not show on this particular list, but there are eight more lists on this subject.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-correction: All nationalities of aces do show on this table. However, without the aerodrome, I do not know how we would gather lists of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor/George, first off, the above responses don't address my question of why the individual claims are not directly cited in some fashion, either one-by-one or by using an overarching source with exceptions noted. WP requires citations for information that is contentious or may be challenged, and aces' claims certainly fit those categories. One of WP's pillars is verifiability, not truth, and at the moment I can't even verify the presumed sources of truth employed for the numbers presented. Again, if I've missed something, then pls let me know.

George, to take your responses in order:

  • As I've said, TheAerodrome is a great site. I use it myself, even relying on it where it clearly cites its sources. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the majority of its pages. I also don't see that expressing concerns about relying on this particular site in an FA candidate article casts doubts on all online sources. There are a number of official online sites and online copies of books that are acceptable as sources for WP articles, I've used them myself. I also don't see that my comments cast doubt on an online encyclopedia like WP, for the very reason we're having this discussion: WP demands inline citations to reliable sources and effectively has a transparent peer reviewing system for its more highly rated articles, i.e. what we're doing right now - I don't see the evidence that TheAerodrome does. I'm also not sure where the evidence is that TheAerodrome is run by the same people we rely on in print; I saw your reply to an earlier query on the reliability of the site but the Links page appears to go to a number of government sites and some private ones but I didn't see key books or authors mentioned - as usual, happy to be pointed in the right direction if I've missed something.
  • I don't recall expressing a preference for older books as references, I would always look to recent books or even online sources that are reliable according to WP guidelines. Of course authors learn more as time goes on, hence Above the Trenches having a supplement printed 6 years after the original book. Not using particular books isn't the major stumbling block for me, more not using a decent range of sources. As I said, the Osprey books used are worthwhile and certainly satisfy the reliability criteria, but they only explicitly cover British, Empire and US aces, not French or German.
  • This last response leads to your final point, George, about where one sources figures for Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces. Well, Osprey has titles for the first two, and Australian aces should be covered under the British and Empire book, and I'd be surprised if Belgian aces aren't in a French aces title. Admittedly I can't help with a Russian one at the moment but therein lies the problem with such list articles, one does have a broad amount of data to source and verify. Be that as it may, I still have to treat this as I would any FA candidate when it comes to referencing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on Ian Rose's concerns? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They should almost completely addressed. The style issues have been fixed, and I am in the process of referencing each score, and re-sourcing any currently using TheAerodrome.com. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've sourced every score that I could find in my books. There are a few still missing, and they all seem to be observers who became aces while flying with various pilots. I should probably be able to cobble together sources to get a score foe them, but it will take time.- Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, old cobber,

Thank you for answering questions I have been asking for many a moon. And I must confess, when I look at what I thought was the sources for the Aerodrome, I find I have been deceived.

I made the remark about the books you mentioned because they are all older than the Osprey releases. I do believe you are the one who mentioned they were by the same authors; I must confess, I did not check for myself.

When I started populating this list 14 months ago, as a brand new contributor to Wikipedia, I worked off the Aerodrome master list because I could find no other. I thought I had cited it at that time. Of course, that was many many iterations ago, before it was divided in nine because of its size.

I've hung around the Aerodrome long enough to have a pretty good idea of whom to trust. The guy who writes the forum asking, What color was the Red Baron's plane? is obviously unreliable. However, I have learned that Greg Van Wyngarten and Adrian Hellwig are both contributors, under the screen names Greg Wyn and Breguet. Dan-San Abbot has written extensively for "Cross and Cockade, and has interviewed more aces than anyone alive. There are many more contributors whose screen names I have not penetrated, but seem reliable, such as rammjaeger.

And, Ian, I don't expect anything of mine to get preferential treatment. I do what I can, and it gets rated however it gets rated. I've become rather unconcerned about that end of Wikipedia. I am only concerned about doing the best, most objective research and writing that I can.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a great deal of work has been done citing individual entries per my request so I am close to supporting, there are just a few items I'd still liked actioned:

  1. The final paragraph of the introduction needs one or more citations.
    • Just waiting on this still, but also noticed Footnote A needs a citation... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see these are now taken care of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We're missing citations for the scores of Gass, Fletcher, Hayward, Cubbon and Edwards.
    • I've taken care of this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There's still some reliance for citations on TheAerodrome that I believe should be removed per my earlier points, specifically:
    • 19 - the figure currently listed in TheAerodrome differs slightly from what we have in the article anyway and, given continuing research, the article may always be out of sync with TheAerodrome so much simpler to drop this citation and find one from a book that says "approximately 1,800" or some such; failing that, drop the whole sentence, since we're concerned with a minority of aces here anyway, namely those scoring 20 or more
    • 89 - Roderic Dallas' undisputed score of 32 and his possible tally of over 50 doesn't need to be cited from TheAerodrome; both Above the Trenches and Dennis Newton's Australian Aces tabulate the 32 which are beyond question and can be used as sourcing for that figure; Newton is also a source for the "official" score of 39 and the figure of possibly over 50 - I'm happy to provide relevant publication/page details for both Above the Trenches and Australian Aces
      • Aerodrome "source" removed. That would be great if you could add those sources, and I'll look again in my books. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Just formatting, there's some rubbish immediately below the table of aces that needs to go.

Thanks for the hard work, if you can just take care of the above, I'll be happy to throw in my support. This'll be a great source of concise info not just for the general public but for those of us working on WP bios of the individual aces. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with alacrity - all issues I raised have been taken care of - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

  • Table: Air Service(s) column should be made so that the second word isn't capitalized.
    • This was mentioned previously, but I countered that because early air forces were usually called Air Services, and the words were part of the name and capitalized, e.g. United States Army Air Service. I'll change it, but I reserve the right to change it back if somemone else confirms my view. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the notes column, the quotation mark in "The Red Baron" (first entry) is throwing off the sorting. Not sure if this one can be fixed or not, but it's at least worth an effort.
  • The References column looks shrunken, as do the cites themselves. Is the column width setting causing this? It's not the most aesthetically pleasing setup I've ever seen, that's for sure.
    • Oops, that was caused by the notes template being a mistaken ly removed. It's now fixed. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page ranges in references require en dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_World_War_I_aces_credited_with_more_than_20_victories/archive1&oldid=1140255811"