Talk:Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (pictured) scored his first victory during what has been called history's first strategic bombing raid? Source: O'Connor, Martin (1994). Air Aces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire 1914 - 1918. Flying Machines Press. ISBN 0-9637110-1-6, ISBN 978-0-9637110-1-4, pp. 217, 329. "On 14 February 1916, Szepessy-Sokoll participated in what could be called the first strategic bombing mission in history....one Italian Caudron two-seater was downed by the combined fire of three of the Austro-Hungarian aircraft, Szepessy-Sokoll's included." (p. 217) Victory list on (p. 329) confirms it was his first victory.

Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll in Hussar uniform

• ALT1: ... that Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (pictured) shot down a pair of Macchi L.3 seaplanes to become a flying ace? Source: As above, O'Connor. (p. 218) "On November 15, 1917, Szepessy-Sokoll became an ace." Victory list on (p. 329) confirms that the victims were Macchi L.3 seaplanes.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Haematomma ochroleucum
• Comment: Another "canvas falcon" bio from the era of silk scarves in the slipstream and blood in the cockpit.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 07:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC).

• I have struck the submitted QPQ review as being both inadequate and an inappropriate fail. Please supply a complete review covering all the DYK criteria as a QPQ for this nomination. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have a QPQ in progress.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Is it possible to use caption "A Macchi M.3 converted for civilian use." as seen in article? Present caption might deceive the reader about the appearance of military Macchi M.3s.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Leo Osnas.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A decent, clear article - and quite fascinating, considering the fragile kites that they had in those days. Neutrality is a complex matter when you're dealing with genuine heroes, because the hero is usually either just gritting his teeth and getting on with the job, or he's a crazy idiot. But the crazy idiot airmen usually got culled straight after training, when celebrating their first hedge-hopping, bridge-ducking solo flight, and if they survived that, then their achievements tended to be a bit scattershot with a few great moments maybe. The fact remains that the heroism will always be mostly in the eye of the beholder, because we want heroes - but these people were probably terrified while doing their great acts, and had this one survived he would not necessarily have lived the rest of his life sober, having seen so many horrible deaths. So thank you for dealing with the neutrality so carefully.

I am hesitating about the picture you have chosen, because it's not very clickbaitey, and it doesn't relate directly to Szepessy-Sokoll - it's not his plane and it's not him. Why not use the picture of him from the article? He has quite a striking appearance in his uniform, the pic is free, and it should work as a thumbnail? That's my only niggle; otherwise the nom is fine. Storye book (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I had not thought of using that photo as the picture, but I must agree it is striking because of the hussar uniform. I think it is an inspired choice to replace the suggested photo.. Great suggestion, Storye.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Georgejdorner: Thank you for agreeing to the portrait picture. Both hooks are fine, but I prefer ALT0 because being "history's first" is attention-grabbing. This nom is good to go, now.
• Admin, please substitute the portrait picture for the aeroplane picture. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you. Storye book (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Dispute the claim of first strategic bombing almost certainly fails - there were a number of strategic attacks before this one. Eg the Royal Navy air attacks on the Zeppelin sheds, Zeppelins bombing British ports, and so forth. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you, GraemeLeggett, well spotted, you are correct. I have struck ALT0. So now this is good to go, with ALT1. Storye book (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• I realized that claim might be suspect--hence the wording of the hook "has been called". The hook does not make a definitive claim. Superlatives are tricky.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• @admin: still good to go with ALT1 (the previous comment by Georgejdorner refers to ALT0 which was already struck out). Storye book (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Of course, I was obviously referring to the struck-out ALT, and was agreeing with Mr. Leggett. Indeed, the very slippery definition of "strategic"...well, no need to thrash that about.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

ALT1 to T:DYK/P5 without image

Gardolo airport

The article says, "The formation barely cleared the Alps; the Lohner's ceiling was barely sufficient to clear the peaks. On the other side of the range, after 175 kilometers of flight, the Austro-Hungarians bombed Milan." O'Connor (1994) is cited at the end of the paragraph and this citation might well cover these part of the text. Unluckily, O'Connor (1994) seems not to be accessible on the Internet. I doubt that this passage of the article represents correctly what happened. Szepessy and his comrades flew from Gardolo, which is easily found in Google Maps, just type in "Gardolo". The map shows Gardolo is south of the Alps. It is a northern suburb of Trento, Italy, Trentino-South-Tyrol Region, Trento Province. However, it was then Austrian and part of Tyrol. There are articles in German Gardolo and in Italian Gardolo about Gardolo, which both mention the airfield. They say it was built in 1914 by the Austrians and finally abandoned in 1969. It lay between the railway line and the Adige river where Google Maps now shows an industrial zone. The essential point is that it is not necessary to pass over the Alps to fly from Gardolo to Milano. The distance from Gardolo to Milano is about 200 km: 175 seems a bit too short. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What appears to be an earlier edition of the same source (1985, ISBN 0-912173-03-3) mentions the same thing - leaving Gardolo just before dawn and flying 110 mi to Milan "though the passage over the Alps was somewhat anxiety-provoking".Nigel Ish (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

And as the crow flies from Gardola to Milan will take you over some fairly mountainous terrain - the distances are such that you probably would take a direct route.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Alas, the travail of a Yank writing about European geography! As near as I can tell from Google map is that the flight seems to overflown the eastern end of the Alps. Yet I have no alternative source to quote. This conundrum is going to take some thought before revision.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have looked a bit into this and, first, from what I could find it seems that the Lohner had a ceiling of 3500 m. Now, from Gardolo to Milan there are two main ways that could've been used: go south over Lake Garda, then turn west and head for Milan, arriving from the east; or fly directly west, this way you'll have to go over the Adamello-Presanella Alps which are indeed tall, with heights of over 2000 m, then follow the Valtellina valley, go over Lake Como and arrive at Milan from the north. Of course, there are other alternative routes that can be taken along the way. Now the question is, which route did the Austro-Hungarians take? If they would've gone with the easier one, that would've probably been expected, so they could've gone the long way around. This is just what I think about this, but what's needed is any information regarding the Austrian flight plans. Alin2808 (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that we have a WP:RS that talks about flying over mountains and mentions the Alps suggests that the Westerly route was taken - this would shortened the distance flown and possibly avoided flying over an active battlefield. In the absence of any source that disagrees, how can we say anything else about the routing (if we discuss it at all)?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Did some distance measuring on Google Maps to see if the distance given by the book checks out, got the following: the distance on the southern route is around 180 km; distance on the western route, through the Valtellina valley, is around 200 km. However, I found another route, that is in between the two and is around 175 km as the book suggests. This third route also goes over the Adamello-Presanella Alps and avoids flying over Bergamo, instead going over Lake Iseo, which also kinda confirms the book further as there are no mentions of flying over another city. So, I do think this is the one that was taken, unless, as Nigel Ish said, someone can find a source that disagrees. Alin2808 (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have rewritten the relevant sentences, removing the false claim of first strategic bombing mission. I have also modified the description of the mission's flight path.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Good. I do think they flew over the Alps as said previously, so maybe that part could stay, but I do doubt they "barely cleared the peaks" considering the ceiling of the Lohner and the height of the mountains. Unless they tried to fly over the tallest peaks and not go around them for some reason. Alin2808 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)