Talk:The Hardest Day

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hardest Day/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The article is well written and maintains a good style.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   References are well used and are reliable.A citation for the last paragraph of the Background section is needed.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The article does not seem to be subject to edit warring.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are used effectively and are in the public domain. Captions are used effectively.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Very well written and informative. Harrison49 (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to into intro

The changes made 24 hours ago have dragged a respectable introduction down several levels. The writing was childish (a "bad series of raids on the 15th and 16th"), information wrong (the insistence that Adlertag was partially successful is refuted by this and that article) and the need for change didn't exist. This lead is supposed to be a summation of what follows. This article reached GA on the strength of its existing state, it would not maintain it with these sorts of revisions. Please leave alone. Dapi89 (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Strange arithmetic re. British fighters

"there were 855 machines serviceable, with another 289 at storage units and 84 at training units. This gave a total of 1,438 fighters". Huh ? Rcbutcher (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It is exactly as in the source. There was, perhaps, other resources present that Bungay did not mention and he skips this and moves straight to the total serviceable. I'll add clarity. Dapi89 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

In that case, the source is unreliable in this instance and another should be found.

nah. Dapi89 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The discrepancy is probably due to the 'missing' aircraft being worked-upon and undergoing servicing, meaning that they weren't 'immediately available' but would be shortly. If an aircraft was due an engine change or other routine maintenance (due to normal wear and tear) it would still be quite flyable but would not be counted as 'serviceable' and so would not appear in the figures.

Although hard pressed throughout the battle, the RAF was able to maintain normal aircraft servicing and maintenance operations almost all of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.0 (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Anybody else confused?

The article today is a rich mix of:

• metric units used by the German air force then and by most of the world now;
• imperial units used by the UK air force then and only in the USA now; and
• units of measurement in Annex 5 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

While some people are able and happy to do all the mental conversions necessary, personally I find it a bit of a drag and start mistrusting the ability of the author. Measurements are crucial to understanding the battle and if the writers can't be bothered to make them either consistent or comprehensible to 21st century readers, then in my view this is NOT A GOOD ARTICLE. Clifford Mill (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Unsustainable losses on both sides"

Under "Inconclusive" in the "Result" section it says that both sides suffered "Unsustainable attrition". I think this phrase needs amending. What does it even mean? That both sides lost fighter aircraft at a rate faster than they could produce? That would be true for almost any battle. Furthermore, how could BOTH sides suffer unsustainable attrition in efforts against each other? If it's unsustainable for you and not them, you will lose. If it's unsustainable for both, who will win? The word unsustainable means something to me if it is on only one side of the aisle. I think this phrase should say "heavy" attrition, or something to that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kypwri (talk • contribs) 15:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It means what it says. Read the quotation from Price. If you still cant understand it, I cant help you. Dapi89 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It means that this air war could not continue at the rate it was going much longer - even with Britain's superior aircraft and better kill ratio, they could have 'won the battle, but lost the war (eventually)' - neither could Germany afford to lose aircraft at that rate month after month. If Hitler had not switched primary targets from airfields to London in a fit of 'revenge' for the Berlin night bombing, it's possible that Great Britain might have lost control of the air - but the cost to the Luftwaffe would have been fearful.50.111.28.117 (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction in article

Article has a contradiction - please address.

The Lede:

However, many RAF aircraft were destroyed on the ground, equalising the total losses of both sides.

Aftermath-Outcome

Considering the weight of attack against airfields, hardly any fighters were destroyed on the ground. Figures indicated just two Spitfires and six Hurricanes were lost in this manner.