Talk:Peter Drummond (RAF officer)

Good faith edits

Thanks for the partial revert. I'm a scientist, and I'm sure we were trained to put citations before the punctuation. I guess I'm one of the editors who prefer the style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation, which seems to me to be a much more logical place for them. But I'd begun to notice that much of wikipedia does it the other way, and so I re-checked WP:CITE (actually before I found your revert) and discovered I'd misread the policy last time around (wishful thinking I guess?) While I still prefer the "other" way, I agree consistency is paramount, so I came to revert my edits and found you'd already done it.

I don't agree however that "returned ... again" is redundant. He actually returned to Britain twice, first from Sudan and secondly from Australia (presumably, although the text doesn't actually say explicitly that he went; it's very easy to misread RAAF as RAF and wonder how he can be returning when he's already here - if you see what I mean). As it stands, the article has two almost consecutive sentences which both effectively begin "After returning to Britain, ....". I felt that this didn't read well and was potentially confusing. Adding "again" seemed the simplest way to emphasise that he was returning for the second time. However, I not that fussed about it, so if you prefer the article as it is, or can suggest an alternative way to clarify it, then that's OK with me.

Also, in many articles, I've noticed a certain lack of consistency with commas. Here we have "After returning to Britain (no comma) Drummond...." and "Returning to Britain, he ...." I think the comma is correct in both places. Any thoughts? --Romney yw (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I very much appreciate the way you put things here. If it will make you feel any better, I did check my recollection of WP:Cite before that partial revert, but obviously was still too quick...! Re. your other points, well, I must still be a bit close to this one, not noticing the repeated 'returning'. Looking at it afresh, I tend to agree on both that point and the one about the commas; in fact I wonder now whether that second 'returning to Britain' is really necessary. Both sentences indentify locations in Britain, but 'London' is particularly obvious. How do you feel about this:

After returning to Britain, Drummond attended the RAF Staff College, Andover, graduating in April 1923. Seconded to the RAAF in June 1925, he served as Deputy Chief of the Air Staff until 1927, then as Director of Operations and Intelligence until November 1929. He graduated from the Imperial Defence College, London, in December 1930.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Roy Maxwell Drummond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I have elected to review this article against the Good Article criteria and should have my initial comments posted up within the next few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have completed reviewing this article under the criteria and have decided to place it on hold. The article is very close to passing, but I have a few minor concerns which I have listed below. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Would it be possible to expand on the duties Drummond proformed while on the hospital ship at Gallipoli? It just seems a little too blunt and sparce in that area at the moment.

   "He was based in the Sudan in 1920-21, putting down local rebellions." - This section is a little confusing. Would it be possible to expand what the rebellions were, and a little more on what Drummond's role was?

   • Very little else on these subjects but will add a phrase or two more where I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

   • Actioned - let me know what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

   Looks good now. Nice work. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Other comments

The following a just simply suggestions for article improvement, and are not required for GA.

• The subheading "Deputy Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Middle East and candidate for RAAF leadership" is quite long, and looks quite strange in the contents box compared to the others. I don't think "candidate for RAAF leadership" is particularily necessary in the heading, so perhaps just shorten it to "Deputy Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Middle East".
  • Agree, only put the second bit in because occupies a fair bit of copy in the section but he was Deputy AOC-in-C while that went on so happy to have another opinion to drop it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• In regards to the succession box, as you know, I prefer to add the ranks of the person who preceded and succeeded to the position, as I believe it adds a little more clarification that it is a military post/position and greater understanding to the responder. Perhaps you could consider doing the same with this article?
  • I don't have an issue with this particularly and it seems to have taken hold in Australian military bio articles but don't believe it's std in British military ones, so I don't think it should we should put it in this one unless we're prepared to apply it to similar British articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I may have seen one or two with the ranks added, but it's up to your own discretion. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• One more thing I forgot to add: you have Drummond credited with 7½ victories split between three sources, two of which credit him with 8. Truthfully, I would state 8 victories and remove the ADB reference, as ½ victories were not credited in WWI; it was either a whole victory or none at all, even if it was shared.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You are very welcome. I am now satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria, and I am promoting it as such. Congratulations! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Victories

Bryce, re. your point on the kills figure, I think you're probably right - the ADB figure may even be a case of the author doing what we would term original research, i.e. reading 8 victories including 1 shared (as made explicit in The Aerodrome's list) and deducing a final figure of 7½. It's a bit different to the Stanley Goble case, where we have only two sources that can't clearly be reconciled. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the author of the ADB article was going along the lines of World War II tallies, in which ½ victories were included, but, as I stated above, this was not done in World War I. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Air of Authority website as reference

Hello,

I find it a bit puzzling that the prior editor checking for dead links couldn't fetch it up at http://www.rafweb.org/Biographies/Drummond.htm. If I could decipher the cites affected, I would correct them. If someone more skilled could oblige the readers...?

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peter Drummond (RAF officer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226223020/http://www.rafweb.org/Index.htm to http://www.rafweb.org/Index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)