Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because as a newbie in Wikipedia (3 months) I'd appreciate advice on layout, potential subject matter which I've missed and improvements necessary to make it a good article. I appreciate your help. Thanks, Researcher1944 (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great topic for an article, and it's in really good shape. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• Can you provide a statistical summary of the number of Bomber Command aircrew over time? A summary of casualty numbers/rates over time would also be really useful.
• As a suggestion for an additional source, this article is one of the best things I've read on Bomber Command, and provides an important reminder that the world view of the airmen and senior military and political leaders at the time was quite different to that of modern people.
• "carrying out strategic bombing operations against forces fighting against Britain throughout the course of the war from September 1939 to May 1945" - this needs to be broadened given that Bomber Command operations frequently targeted German urban areas and civilians (I note that the article currently doesn't discuss how the airmen felt about such attacks)
• I'd suggest that the article open with an overview of Bomber Command's size and personnel make-up at the start of the war. Jumping straight into trades is a bit confusing.
• Lots of common terms or correct names of things are presented in quotes (eg, "it became common for airmen to "team up" and form the crew with whom they would fly "operations" while still at their "Operational Training Unit""). These should be removed.
• Also, watch out for repeated linking of topics
• The last para of the 'Nationalities of airmen' looks out of place
• I'd suggest moving the 'training' section to an earlier place in the article, especially as this is where you've described the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan which was so important to Bomber Command
• The section on the BCATP could note that it resulted in a massive over-supply of trained airmen in the last year of the war, leaving lots of qualified aircrew stuck in the UK with little to do.
• I'd also suggest moving the "Operational tour" section to an earlier place
• I don't find the 'Attitude to losses' section convincing: surely many of the airmen were traumatised at the time and afterwords by the deaths of their friends and comrades and the generally heavy casualty rates. From memory, Bomber Command established rest centres for airmen suffering PTSD
• Similarly, the section on "Lack of Moral Fibre" is also somewhat under-developed given that distressed aircrew were provided with outlets for rest, with many returning to their units. Unit COs also often treated distressed aircrew with compassion. I think that there were also a substantial number of aircrew who refused to fly further operations, and this should be noted (from memory, they were treated pretty harshly and faced being sent to the infantry or similar, but it was an option).
• It might be worth noting how the command's two elite bombing squadrons (Nos. 9 and 617) were manned
• The mention of Sergeant Jim Rossiter looks out of place
• The breakdown of casualties by national service needs a reference
• The material on POWs should note the long-distance marches in terrible conditions many POWs were forced to undertake over the winter of 1944-45.
• The 'Particularly notable aircrew of Bomber Command' section is confusing: were these men notable because of their service in Bomber Command, or for other reasons? Given the high standards which were required for aircrew and the significant numbers of personnel, it's not surprising that many went on to fame after the war (Max Hastings makes an interesting point in his book on Bomber Command where he notes that the formation's high casualty rate cost Britain many of the highly skilled and motivated people it would need in the post-war decades).
• The article could also note what happened to the aircrew after the war (with most being demobilised and not serving as aircrew again, but some remaining active in their national air forces and/or the civilian aviation industry) and the veterans' associations. The campaign for proper recognition of their service is also somewhat relevant. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the article is good and has great potential for development too. I'd try to be stricter on pictures etc since the text slaloms down the screen, perhaps "See also" and "Main" wikilinks could substitute for pictures and descriptions of all but a few things? I would put the training aspects before the operational ones too and para/post-operational after, including the LMF section, that could be better if there were some statistical context. I'm not keen on lists of notables, I find them facile and discriminatory and I'm not sure that Hastings is right about the effect of the losses, although the quality of his scholarship somewhat contradicts my point. Keith-264 (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. I appreciate the advice, thank you, I shall set about some of the changes next week, particularly moving the Training section up nearer the top which makes considerable sense.
2. I've had a hard time finding anything much on numbers regarding LMF.
3. I believe that I have annual casualty stats somewhere so will be able to do something with that.
4. The "" will be removed.
5. I will remove the list of notables, I'd seen it elsewhere an unashamedly copied the concept.
6. I mentioned to AustralianRupert that I'm uncertain over the title as I'd like to get into it the Commonwealth aspect.
7. Strangely while we're reviewing what needs doing here somebody has gone in and chopped a lump out of it, is that normal ?

Researcher1944 (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Researcher, once again I'd like to say congratulations and thanks for your hard work. I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the web citations should include publisher/work and accessdate details. The ((cite web)) template can be used to format these (although it is not mandatory) - for instance compare ref # 74 with # 75 (Hayter). Ref # 75 has the requisite extra details that they should all include;
• while the images are fantastic, I think you need to rationalise them somewhat as the text is currently being sandwiched between them, which the Manual of Style precludes (policy ref here: MOS:IMAGELOCATION)
• the motto and battle honours should be mentioned in the text with a reference, or if not mentioned in the text, then a ref/citation should be added to the infobox for this information.

• Thanks, I have made a start and will continue during next week.
• Is it right for that chunk of text to have been deleted while a peer review is on-going, I thought that the action portrayed in the example citations added a useful angle towards understanding the experiences of aircrew ??Researcher1944 (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's not unusual. If you disagree with the deletion revert it and start a discussion. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick-D, I'm a newbie and I'm already getting a bit tired of random folks dropping in and chopping bits out of articles I've done on the basis that they (non specialists) don't think that the information is necessary, I'd understand if my info was incorrect, or if they replaced it with something better, but they remove stuff just because in their opinion it's unnecessary ! Researcher1944 (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• Welcome, I see you're just getting started on Wikipedia. You've made a very good start.
• In your page name, "aircrew" should be "aircrews", "crewmembers", or something else. See the poster in your article ("Join an air crew"), or click on the link on "aircrew" for a definition ... it's a group flying in one plane. I'll move the page to the new name if you like.
• I did a little copyediting in the lead section; have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks to everybody for the constructive critique, as you'll see I'm getting into it in stages, I've reconfig'd the article to raise the section on Training, I've removed the Notables, the pictures are coming into line with policy, the "" are being removed, etc, etc. Thanks to all. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]