Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision

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.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Another article I wrote and took to GA a few years ago, then left alone to see if anything more turned up in the way of sources. Little has, so I think we have pretty well the full story here. This incident was extraordinary not only for the collision itself and its immediate denouement, but for an aftermath that would be comical if it wasn't so tragic – and to top it off the third picture of the entangled aircraft is courtesy of someone near and dear to me, who just happened to be one of the local flying school's young instructors at the time. ;-) I really would like to see this on WP's front page some time, so that means FAC but, before that, let's see how it fares here... Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Do you know of any other planes that landed safely after colliding and interlocking in the air? If not, do you know of any sources that claim that this event was unique? - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan. Re. "a/an historic", I prefer "an" myself but don't feel strongly about it, so no prob with your edit. Re. "uniqueness", the only documentation I've seen for myself that mentions similar accidents is the Flight International page that I put in the EL section. It suggests that two instances occurred in Canada (again with Ansons -- they must've been built for this sort of thing!) during the war, both after this one took place. Only one of those Canadian incidents is described as "well-authenticated" but I haven't seen the presumed reliable sources for it (I found a blog that suggested a few places to look but they're not books in my local library system). The bottom line is that I believe the Brocklesby accident was certainly "unique at the time" but perhaps not "unique in all time" -- so I didn't use the term at all out of pragmatism... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Ian, fascinating topic. I have a couple of minor comments by way of review: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the images seem appropriately licenced, but on the topic I wonder if a couple of the images should be removed, currently the article looks a little cluttered, but that might be my small screen...If you do decide to remove a couple, it might make sense to create a Commons category for those you remove
- I guess I tend to space things based on my two laptop screens (10-in and 14-in) rather than mobiles, and it seems all right on them -- perhaps I might wait and see if anyone else has thoughts...?
"emergency 'pancake' landing" --> should pancake be in double quotes?
- I'll admit I'm not sure of the rule but I tend to use double quotes only when reporting what someone's said, and single quotes when it's a figure of speech.
same as above for 'circuits and bumps';
- Ditto -- although I'll double-check and see if anything links to them in which case I might drop even the single quotes.
  - Found a link for circuits and bumps but not for pancake landing per se. Perhaps I should create a redirect for it, pointing to emergency landing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a couple of the external links report as dead (is it possible to add a link to Web Archive/Wayback Machine?): [1]
- Yes, I use Wayback quite often. I thought I'd checked all the links in the article to ensure they were live but will go through them again.
  - Mmm, tried each external link myself and all worked, so maybe a furphy before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and created a spotlight on..." This sounds a little awkward to me. Perhaps, "cast a spotlight on..."?
- Yes, definitely -- tks.
are there publisher details that could be added for the World War 2 Nominal Roll entries? Perhaps, Commonwealth of Australia? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Vets Affairs from memory -- will check and add. Many tks for review/support, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Great article Ian, and your father's photo adds a lot of value. I have a few comments though:

"The RAAF's Inspector of Air Accidents, Group Captain Arthur "Spud" Murphy was quickly on the scene" - this seems a bit surprising. Was he based in this area? (which would make sense given it's where most of the air accidents would have been taking place)
- I could try going back to Winneke's bio and see where he and Murphy were based and/or precisely when they arrived. I suspect they were in Melbourne, at Point Cook or RAAF HQ, and so could have travelled to the NSW border in a matter of hours. Do you feel that "quickly" implies almost momentarily (I got the impression that anything up to a day after was "quick" back then)... ;-)
  - "Quickly" implies he was among the first to arrive. You could tweak this to "When the RAAF's Inspector of Air Accidents, Group Captain Arthur "Spud" Murphy visited the scene"... Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clarified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and created a spotlight on the small town of Brocklesby" - did it really lead to coverage of the town other than it happening to be near the crash? If not, I'd suggest omitting this.
- The actual wording from memory was "put Brocklesby on the map" so happy to take suggestions for rewording but I felt it was worth including something to this effect, that most people in Australia -- never mind the world -- had never heard of the place before this.
  - "bringing reporters to the little-known town" perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well we could infer that but the source doesn't go into detail. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd suggest cutting this outright given that the fame was limited and fleeting, but it's much of a muchness. It's interesting that the town has built a memorial to the accident! Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess it's their way of accepting that this incident was indeed the town's fifteen minutes of fame (although if this eventually gets to TFA we'll give 'em a whole 24 hours, seventy-odd years after the event)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did the pilots receive any punishment for colliding in the first place? (accidents weren't as big a deal at this time as they are now - for obvious reasons - but it seems to have been an avoidable accident). Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The only punishment I've been able to reference was for Fuller talking about it out of turn. The initial incident report is on NAA but tells us nothing we don't know from other sources and of course pre-dates any inquiry. Certainly nothing happened that curtailed their flying careers (though of course there was a war on)... ;-) One news report said Fuller was even considered for a decoration, but as that was the only source I decide to leave it out. Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I imagine that pilots who were skilful and lucky enough to survive this situation were considered a real asset. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.