Talk:Aerial victory standards of World War I
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aerial victory standards of World War I article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Victory standards still needed.
editAustria-Hungary
Australia (Australian Flying Corps)
Russia (Imperial Russian Air Service)
My complete re-write!!
editThis article seems to be effectively the (very creditable) effort of a single editor to compose the basis of a workable article on the subject.
In correcting its flaws, I have no doubt introduced some of my own!
1) The use of "win" or "triumph" as a substitute for "victory" in this context may have the "authority" of a thesaurus but it just won't do - to be blunt, it's not English. I know that the editor responsible doesn't like "kill" as a synonym for "aerial victory" (it is in fact ugly and possibly misleading, so I don't like it much myself) - as a preferred alternative I have hammered "victory" a bit more than good style might dictate, and also rewritten some sentences or paragraphs to obviate the necessity to repeat the word.
2) The first paragraph of the British section, which is entirely new, needs a reference. It should not take up too much time and effort to find one - since the basic fact is well known and I can remember reading paras to the same effect more than once in various places. There is the odd case here and there where a reference might keep up the high standard set by the original author in this regard.
3) Although the article was created in "American practice" it is now, with an odd possible exception, in Australian (i.e. essentially British) English. This is due more to my carelessness than any conviction that one usage is in every way better than the other - or even to my own opinion that it makes better historical sense to have general WWI articles (i.e. ones not on specifically American subjects) in British usage. If the original author of the article prefers to change it back into American then I have no real objection.
4) The article now has a lead (or "lede").
5) Some murky, repetitious, and awkward prose has been "improved". Hopefully this has been done without changing the sense, or introducing infelicitous expression of my own.
An incomplete re-wrong!
editIn popular usage, "kill" is falsely used as a synonym for "victory". Given that many "kills" left the victim unharmed, it is obvious that kills weren't necessarily fatal or even harmful. However, many WP editors peacock their articles by using this inaccurate term to make their articles more exciting. Thus I beg to differ with my esteemed colleague. Georgejdorner (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- We have gone through all this so many times now and I have always conceded it is an ugly word in this context and we can usually do better (although this remains an idiosyncrasy of ours, most writers use "kill" with gay abandon). Hope you have read the article to determine if it is indeed "peacocked" before adding the above. One little "kill", and you are welcome to change that one if you like. But not (please) to "win", or "triumph" - which just aren't English (British, American, or even Transwegian) in this context. If (especially at this interval in time) that's your worst comment I'll take it as a compliment, anyway. Sincere best wishes.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)