Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Keith Park

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

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 by Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Keith Park

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Keith Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Keith Park was one of the more famous New Zealanders of the Second World War, commanding No. 11 Group during the Battle of Britain, and then going on to hold senior roles in the Middle and Far East. He was also a flying ace during the previous world war. The article was in a bit of a sorry state when I started the improvement process last October, but I think it does Park justice now. It has just gone through the GA process, and I hope to get it through to A-class now. Thanks in advance to all those who stop by to take a look. Zawed (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

edit

Fine article on an important individual -- well-researched, measured, and detailed but not overly so. I reviewed for B-Class with GAN in mind, and at GAN with ACR in mind, so apart from a couple of minor tweaks to prose I don't have much to add at his stage, but will be interested in seeing others' comments. Minor points re. infobox:

  • I don't think we need spouse as not wiki-notable in her own right.
  • Likewise I don't think number of children is necessary.

Image and source reviews -- performed both at GAN, again with ACR in mind; both satisfactory AFAIC.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, and also thanks again for your reviewing efforts during the GA process, it was greatly appreciated. Zawed (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, and having reviewed edits since I was last here I see no reason not to support -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

This article is in very good shape. I have the following comments:

  • "Despite his maritime experience, he enlisted in the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) on 14 December 1914 and was posted to the Field Artillery" - this reads a bit oddly given that he was an artilleryman before the war so continuing it would seem to be the logical role (also, NZ didn't have a navy at the time)
  • "Afterwards Park took the unusual decision to transfer from the NZEF to the British Army" - do we know why?
  • "The squadron's most successful pilot over the August–September period, he was then sent to England for a rest. This involved instructing Canadian trainee fighter pilots at Hooton Park" - this reads a bit awkwardly by itself, and seems out of place given that the next para is about early 1918?
  • What were the health problems that affected Park during the early 1920s?
  • "Being responsible for the south-eastern England area, including London, No. 11 Group faced the bulk of the Luftwaffe's air strength, at least 1,000 bombers and 400 fighters, during the Battle of Britain. To counter this, at the start of the battle Park had at his disposal 350 fighters across 22 fighter squadrons and just over 550 pilots" - this seems an inaccurate comparison given that the other groups in Fighter Command routinely contributed fighters and aircrew. The current text reinforces the myth that the RAF was greatly outnumbered in the Battle of Britain - the great strength of the British position was that even if No. 11 Group had been clobbered, which never happened, there were lots of other RAF units located behind London.
  • I have recast the start of the opening paragraph of this section to focus more on the make up of Fighter Command, before delving into the strength of No. 11 Group. I have also added mention of the other groups providing reinforcements as needed. Does this go towards addressing your concerns here? Zawed (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, thanks for taking a look at this. I have now responded to all of your points. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, those changes look very good. I'm pleased to support this nomination Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick, much appreciated! Zawed (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Vami

edit

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting now that I am going to have bones to pick with the tone of this article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • At time of writing, there are nine instances of the word "enemy" in the article. Every use of that word and the point of view that governs it, with the exception of quotations, must be excoriated to preserve our neutrality. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In considering your concerns, there are 11 instances of enemy in the article but two of these are in quotes, leaving nine to be dealt with as follows:
  • 1st and 2nd instance, both in the Service with No. 48 Squadron section, rewritten
  • 3rd instance in the Fighter Command section. This section deals with pre-war planning against the aerial forces of an unspecified attacking country and the term "enemy" here immediately precedes the term "friendly", i.e. a direct contrast, or an antonym if you like. I think this usage is fine and am surprised you consider it a concern, did you review the context in which these are used or just do a count for the term "enemy"?
  • 4th instance in the Battle of Britain section. Fair enough - I probably used enemy here because I didn't want to use the word German twice in the same sentence. I have deleted the term as it is probably an unnecessary qualifier in the context.
  • 5th to 8th mentions are all in the Malta section, and again I think I have used the term once or twice to avoid repetitive language (German/Italian/Axis). A couple of instances are in the context of tactics/planning so I feel that those usages are OK. Nonetheless I have rephrased all but one instance.
  • 9th mention is in the title of one of the sources, so is not something I can do anything about.
Let me know what you think of the changes. Zawed (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go on this account. Sorry for no replying sooner, this flew under my radar. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luftwaffe should be italicized.
  • I had thought it wasn't necessary for Luftwaffe, but checking an FA article it was italicised in that. I may be getting mixed up with another German term. Anyhow, done. Zawed (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the postwar period, [...] Recommend "interwar period", as in anything involving World War II, "postwar" will mean "after '45".
  • Attached to the 29th Division as a temporary second lieutenant [...] Was Park's earlier commissioning un-official, or did the transfer to the British Army make it un-official? Can you clarify?
  • I'm not sure but his commission was with the NZ military and would have been official; he would have relinquished that commission (have added this point to the section) when he transferred to the British military. I suspect that the British wouldn't have wanted a former officer serving in the ranks so would have given him a temporary rank as an interim measure. They may have used "temporary" as a substitute term for "acting rank" or it could be something different, I'm not sure. I don't think it necessary to get into that. Zawed (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some days without an assignment, he contacted No. 48 Squadron at La Bellevue; [...] If this is a fighter wing, then it's worth mentioning that.
  • [...] the unit moved to Frontier Aerodrome just east of Dunkirk. Should this be the Frontier Aerodrome?
  • It was equipped with the new Bristol Fighter, [...] Was the squadron or the aerodrome equipped with the Bristols?
  • [...] successfully drove off the attackers, sending one out of control. "successfully" here is redundant.
  • What was Noss's rank?
  • For their exploits, [...] Reword. These are not exploits; these were not adventures.
  • Park, flying with Second Lieutenant W. O'Toole while Noss was rested, [...] Rested? Is that the correct tense?
  • [...] had further success on 21 August, driving two Albatros scouts out of control. The object of a fighter aircraft of course is to destroy other planes and thereby secure control of the air, but I am very uncomfortable with stating the satisfaction of that role in those terms on Wikipedia. It is too cavalier in tone, and too odious a euphemism. Compare: "While flying with Second Lieutenant W. O'Toole while Noss rested,[19] Park drove two Albatros scouts out of control on 21 August."
  • It resumed operations but it was now involved in less dangerous work, [...] When.
  • I've rewritten this section a little; digging into the timeline here, it wasn't really a rest as the squadron was still on operations although in a less dangerous role. In light of this my original use of "resumed" is incorrect. Zawed (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In November, he was awarded a French honour, the Croix de guerre, [...] The Frenchness of this award (even with the existence of the Prussian pour le merite) is suggested by its name being in French; it would suffice to say that Park was awarded this medal by the French.
  • [...] for services in support of the 1st French Army during its time in the Flanders sector. Whose time in the Flanders sector, and (possibly stupid question) is that distinct from the "Arras sector" the squadron was previously stated to be posted to?
  • Park was able to send one Albatros out of control but his observer's gun jammed, increasing the difficulty of fending off the remainder. One wonders how a jammed gun would make aerial combat easier. Recommend cutting the relevant clause.
  • [...] flying with H. Knowles, [...] What was Knowles' rank?
  • [...] he crashed a Bristol during a test. Test what? Test flight?
  • He had applied for a permanent commission [...] Recommend "he" changing to "Park" here since the last person mentioned by name is Park's wife, and the preceding paragraph consists of her background.
  • In the meantime, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. Was this awarded to Park because of the 1880-mile stunt or for his wartime service?
  • Park was granted his permanent commission in September, with effect from 1 August, [...] What year?
  • [...] Park was posted to the Air Defence of Great Britain (ADGB) in August. Could you add the word "command" in here? Without it, this sounds like a think tank or a presentation; it doesn't immediately have a military feel if one is not already aware of what ADGB is.
  • The ADGB is linked, and there is an explanation in the following sentences as to its function. I have now added mention that it was a RAF command as part of that explanation. Zawed (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fighter squadron, it operated the Armstrong Whitworth Siskin and Park ensured that it worked extensively, [...] I am confused. What was Park ensuring "worked extensively"? What does "extensively" mean in this context? I am to assume from the rest of the sentence that Park put in long hours testing this plane - in that case, why not delete "extensively" and let the succeeding close communicate that fact?
  • As part of this he recommended replacing the rifle calibre machine guns on the Hurricane and Spitfire with heavy machine guns, but was overruled. First mention for both aircraft; should be linked.
  • During the Phoney War, [...] appendectomy. [...] Bristol Blenheims, Ditto.
  • [...] Park had to assess which raids were a real threat and which were diversionary, intended to draw away RAF fighters. Recommend cutting "diversionary"; redundant.
  • It was not until 1 August, when Adolf Hitler ordered the invasion of Britain, that the Luftwaffe escalated its aerial operations, with a view to the invasion commencing in late September. As I recall, Operation Sealion was contingent on the Luftwaffe eliminating the RAF, and thus kept getting pushed back.
  • An added issue was the drain on pilots through combat losses and their replacements being inadequately trained. And fatigue.
  • [...] airfields at North Weald, Manston and Hornchurch [...] Are there links that can be made here?
  • [...] instead of Leigh-Mallory, on the basis the former was [...] On the basis that?
  • Shortly after his relief, on 17 December, it was publicly announced that Park had been appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath. The Order of the Bath is worth a link, I'd think.
  • RAF South Cerney [...] Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire [...] Gozo and Pantelleria. [...] The Australian Prime Minister, John Curtin, [...] Recommend linking.
  • In any case, General Douglas MacArthur, the commander of the South West Pacific Area, said it was too late in the war to make such changes. I understand this is MacArthur, but it would be worth noting here that he is American.
  • One of Park's concerns for Park was the British Army's [...] Huh?
  • [...] which extended from Kandy, where he was initially based until shifting to Singapore, northwest to Quetta, south to the Cocos Islands and Hong Kong to the northeast. This sentence would greatly benefit from links to these places.
  • [...] he was retired from with effect from 20 December 1946 [...] Huh?
  • Auckland International Airport at Māngere [...] international airport at Mangere [...] The Sir Keith Park Special School in Mangere Spelling inconsistent.
Vami_IV, thank you for the feedback and for the copyedit that you did, catching a few of my typo howlers. I have responded to your comments as above, and with eits to the article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Supporting now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:20, 11 March 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Keith_Park&oldid=1144161102"