Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gordon Bennett Cup (ballooning)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [1].

Gordon Bennett Cup (ballooning)

Featured list candidates/Gordon Bennett Cup (ballooning)/archive1

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I found this by chance, with a curious title and all that, I was engaged by the fact that it happened to be taking place as I read the article. Now, events have taken over, we're missing one of the USA teams somewhere over the Adriatic. It's an amazing race, one of the oldest, slowest and simplest, basically it's "float as far as you can". It's not as simple as it sounds, not by any means. The list won't be up-to-date, of course, until USA2 are heard from/discovered, but in the meantime, I'd like to thank you all for your time and energy in giving me feedback in making this a decent list, one which the community should be proud of. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update somewhat terribly, I think the list is now stable. USA2 has not been found and the lifeguards have called off their search. Thank you all, once again, for your interest and attention in the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Ucucha. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The images are all right-aligned on top of each other, but also above the table for me. I suppose that they are meant to be to the right of the table. Can this easily be fixed? (I know it is not a pleasant task to do that for all browsers and screen resolutions.) bamse (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I need someone clever to help me with that, so it'll be on-going until then...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I see. bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I looked at the page in Firefox, IE and Chrome and don't see any problem.—Chris!_c/t 22:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it also depends on the screen resolution. In my case, I am watching it on a small laptop screen at 1024 x 768. It is the same problem for IE, firefox and opera. However, don't waste your time searching for a fix. At some extreme screen sizes such problems always happen. bamse (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~1931 is missing from the list, why? bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
- True, the official website says the event was not held that year. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The row "Event not held from 1940 to 1982" jumps around when sorting. AFAIK, this cannot be helped with present wikipedia table technology. Did you consider getting rid of it completely? bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could do that. I was asked to put it in, actually, by another editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks better now to me. bamse (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Should there be a row like "Event not held from 1940 to 1982" for the time from 1914 to 1919 (supposedly because of WWI)? bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Well if you want me to remove the other row, then I guess this is a moot point! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was meant as another option: either have both intervals marked by a row like that or none. bamse (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Every "missing" year is now noted in a referenced note. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intro could have some more information on who the organizers are (Did Gordon Bennett only sponsor the first race or also subsequent races?) and why the race was not held for a long time after WWII (Who revived it in 1983?). bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can do, but the official website is not particularly useful with respect to your questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. Did some digging, discovered that an American revived it in 1979 but no results (or evidence of subsequent races until 1983) seem to be considered official by the organisation. Still, it comes from a RS and I've added it in there with a note. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aha, even better, some official minutes from the various balloon organisation meetings with a quote stating 1983 was the first official running of the trophy since 1938. Added new reference, with quote. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much better now, but the following phrase confuses me: "appropriate international sanctions, and permission from the Poles". What sanctions? And why did he need permission from the Poles? bamse (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Revised a bit, the Poles were the incumbent holders of the trophy... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Bamse! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Could he have organized the cup in Poland without permission? Or am I missing something. bamse (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        He was organising the cup in a country which wasn't the holder, that's why he needed permission from Poland to host it. I guess if he'd done it in Poland, that would have been fine. But he didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All comments have been addressed. bamse (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Nomader ^(Talk) 03:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Incredibly fascinating subject, much different than the usual stuff that comes through FLC. Nice choice.
- Agreed, a very interesting topic! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the race still on-going? If it is, it should say "the race has been marred" instead of "was marred" in the third paragraph of the lead, as it's still current.
- Yes, it's still on-going until the discover the fate USA2. Obviously the list will be updated at the conclusion of all this, but I've made your change regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the rules section, what is "FAI"? It should be defined first before being used as an abbreviation.
- My mistake, it was, however, a direct quotation from the rules. Now expanded and linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the rules section is a bit confusing. Does the NAC host the next tournament, or does the country that the NAC is from host the next tournament? Might be best to clarify that.
- The winning team represents a NAC. That NAC then hosts the competition two years later... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Any NAC winning the cup in three consecutive races will be the final holder of the cup..." Does this mean that if one NAC wins three times in a row, the tournament as a whole ends? Or do they get to keep the trophy and offer a new one in its place?
- It means as it says, the trophy can be kept and the NAC is invited to host a new tournament. It doesn't appear to have happened though! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sortability of the list checks out, as do most of the references– I don't have Excel or Open Office right now though, so I couldn't check the main source of the list. Otherwise though it appears to be well written and well put together, well done. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry that I haven't had the time to do a more thorough review for such a fascinating list, college is just eating away my time. I'll let the other reviewers express their support, as unfortunately I haven't looked at this closely enough to lend myself to either direction. From my quick glance though, it's a job well done Rambling Man! Nomader ^(Talk) 03:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Many were previously addressed here.

~~Why is the 2009 time missing?~~
- Dunno, added now! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 row is currently not cited (it isn't in the Excel spreadsheet)
- Cited from 2010 website. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The time disagree unless you are drawing on another source. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~WRT that row you removed because it was jumping around with sorting. Although Bamse said there wasn't a workaround I think this would work if you wished. However, I'll leave this to you and Bamse.~~
- I don't feel strongly about these colspan rows. However, the problem here is that there is no meaningful position for these rows when you sort for anything besides "Date". Note that this is different to the examples in the colspan workaround which do have a meaningful position when sorting for either of the two columns. Besides, it would be quite cumbersome to implement something like it here. bamse (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel, like bamse, if the colspans bunch up or jump around when sorted by something other than date, then the notes will suffice. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Are the italics needed as well. They don't help from an access POV.~~
- Italics removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This might mean some work but isn't it logical for location to sort like "United States, Albequerque (sp!)" and "United States, Chicago" so the same host countries sort together. I remember mentioning this at someone elses FLC in the past.
- Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"record time for the event" is ... While possible, this is not necessarily true. It is the longest time in the air of a winner, however times of non-winners are not listed as far as I can see and it is is possible that someones stayed in the air longer but in little/no air current so didn't travel far, didn't win, and isn't recorded. Understand where I'm coming from?
- Added "... the winner of..." between "for" and "the". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never know the answer to this in "American teams", is American acceptable for refering to the US (bit like the British, for the UK) thing you asked me in an FLC.
- I don't have a problem with it, but I'm not American! Unless anyone finds it offensive, I'll leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Any NAC winning the cup in three consecutive races will be the final holder" is this a recent rule or have there been other trophies as there is certainly occassions where this has happened.
- Well, it does go on to say that they can offer to hold the next race, and that's what's happened as far as I can tell. There's no evidence to suggest that the trophy or the contest has been abandoned after one of these. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interstingly this claimed Joe Kissinger "retired the trophy with three consecutive victories" although I thought for ages that it didn't quite match up, this shows a win in 1982. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the trophy could have been "retired" but as the rules say, it can be offered up once again by the winning NAC... But with regard to the results, I'm using the official list from the official website, no sign of Ki(tt/ss)inger there...! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise good list. Always nice to see something less mainstream and cookie-cutter. And I definately owed you this review (and a few more!) after all you've done for me. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mention Anderson and Ida's death. This wasn't in the Gordon Bennet Cup it was in the "Coupe Charles et Robert" (after Jacques Charles and the Robert brothers) – for the 200th two races were held that year.[2] That should probably be mentioned (the other race, that is). And the deaths were apparently why that race was never held again.
- Man alive, until I started this, I had no idea at all about the sheer number of these wacky races. I've removed the reference to Anderson and Ida (so now the Daily Telegraph better issue an apology for ripping the article off without attribution!!!) and I'm not sure the other race is really directly relevant here. It may start a trend of balloon-based lists though....! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually on further digging the distinction is subtle. 1983 newspapers articles ([3][4]) described it as part of the "Gordon Bennett Internation Balloon Race". Also, out of curiousity which Telegraph article (I like to keep track of these as an error I accedientally put in an article recently got published by "relaible source" The Guardian. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think whatever this race was it was part of the Gordon Bennett event and should be included somehow. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But even the official results don't include Anderson and Ida... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And some sources are published "before" the race was run... But overwhelming evidence seems to support the reinclusion of the crash, in my opinion. So done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you read the 1983 story in full it explains that the races took place simultaneously with the same rules. Basically it was a way to get around the rules of only two balloons per nation, giving 7 more racers. Newspapers at the time seemed to report it as an 18 balloon race.[5][6][7] Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I looked at those stories and tried to check that they're reliable (they're certainly floral/tabloidy in language), with no success. They nice and anecdotal. I've reinstated the para I removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry to drag this on. I reckon the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[8] and the The New York Times (which puts it in the title) [9] are pretty reliable. Anyway, I think the accident should be mentioned within a context of the Coupe Charles et Robert which allowed additional competitors to compete and was never held again after the deaths. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WRT 1979 re-incarnation, attributed to Thomas F. Heinsheimer: Winners: Double Eagle III, Ben Abruzzo and Maxie Anderson, 617 miles, Long Beach CA and it was sponsered by a Bennet connection, International Herald Tribune. It seems to take the Bennet name in sources e.g. BritannicaToledo Blade but I've seen it called "the ‘alternative’ Gordon Bennett Balloon Race"[10]
- I found some official FAI sources describing this which hopefully covers it nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Google news it occured again with "private sponsor" on April 26, 1980 in LA (from Mile Square Regional Park?) where Ben Abruzzo and Rocky Aoki won with 1347 miles[11]
- Per above, another unofficial race. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks like the 1981 result, not the 1980 race. I couldn't get much out the first Google link bu the second was the 1982 Toledo Blade link which referred to Abruzzo and Aoki winning "last year"... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah yes my mistake. Don't underestimate the power of Google news on this event. Here you go. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great, added, thanks. I'm usually pretty good with Google News, obviously having a bad day of it... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rosie O'Grady piltoed by Joe Kissinger and Charles Knapp won at 884 mi. this
- Per above, this wasn't official, according to the FAI, good spot though. I'm not sure I should be including unofficial runnings (and their statistics) in the official list of winners. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial winner who altighted from his balloon worth a mention?[12]
- That's interesting, but on my screen the source is a bit mangled, and I can't quite work out if the balloon carried on with just his co-pilot onboard or not? I may look for another source... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was also a Gordon Bennett Trophy for an aeroplane race[13] (see also?)
- I see that. I've added it to the dab and this page, but it's a redlink and I'm not sure if that's a good idea for See also? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is like the semi-professional Anglo-Italian Cup era or actually, even better, the WWII List of French Open men's singles champions. Basically, at the time it was considered to be the GBC and retrospective action was taken. If you don't include the winners in the table (which is okay by me) I'd have a paragraph to cover Heinsheimer, the 79–82 winners, and the battle over rights that ensued. Lack of sources no-longer seems to a problem (you could also mention these are no-longer/not regarded as official results). Good compromise? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a fair compromise. I certainly don't want to include them in the table as they simply aren't official winners, but it seems like a reasonable thing to talk about them. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The details are mostly there but I think we can include all the locations, distances, times, (dates?), balloon names, (co)pilots etc. for the unofficial ones. Some of it is there but a few aren't and I'm pretty sure I've seen almost all this information somewhere that I've linked. If you struggle let me know and I'll see what I can do. I think that paragraph should end with a piece about the conflict between FAI and Heinsheimer. Also, "With sponsorship from the International Herald Tribune (reviving a connection to Bennett himself)" is uncited. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sponsorship thing, I thought you said that earlier on! I'll remove it. As for the others, I'm not sure it's strictly necessary to get all the detail of everything for every unofficial race, especially as I'm not creating a nasty little table for it. The prose is better suited with a bit of variety. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capped above comments not because everything is resolved but because it almpst is and I'm stuggling to follow it myself and it is easier to restate issues.

With regard to the rules thing, I have some issues. There are the current rules but should you note their development. From our previous discussions and that 1983 story report only two teams were eligible per nation then and was when some tracking change came in which led to the necessity to have an English speaker. I also think that the part about winning NAC hosy next two year must be very new (especially when comparing locations and previous winners).
- Added max teams change, added previous rule on incumbent winners' obligation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"gain the copyright over the name "Gordon Bennett" and run the event" - needs rephrasing as the name Gordon Bennett is also linked to other sport competitions and I don't think Heisenheimer was trying to get rights over those too.
- Actually, this is causing more grief than it's worth. I added it in on your suggestion, just to have it tagged as {{dubious}} by another editor because most likely it was trademark, not copyright. I'm using the reference as I found it. Perhaps I should remove it altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually this interests me more. It appears Heisenheimer ran a "Gordon Bennett International Balloon Race" in 1984 in the USA. It was also run by Heisenheimer in 1986, in 1988, in 1989. My guess is the FAI doesn't tell the whole truth. This will explain discrepancies such as Kittinger having four unknown wins in the capped cmts. There seemed to be a Central Europe vs USA divide in the 1980s. I saw a few subscription mentions of an American hosted "Gordon Bennett" in the very early 1990s but it was obviously resolved by 1993 ([14]). Unofficial section needs a bit more I think (I know this is probably frustrating but I don't think this should be ignored). The 1983 FIA source says the law suit was still pending (C6 p6). Are there any that actually state an outcome. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, this is becoming a little frustrating as none of this actually relates to the official running of the Cup. However, I'm in for a penny, as you note. I can't and won't go into assuming the FAI "doesn't tell the whole truth". If that's the case then I guess we should close the FLC down as most of its references are sourced from them. The 1983 FAI source said that FAI was granted copyright over the name. While the Google News searches are good, a number of them seem to indicate a general "ignorance" when it comes to stating what is what. I could add a single sentence suggesting that other (more "other") unofficial (well, "reported") Gordon Bennett Cup races have been held... but beyond that, I'm losing the will. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added a further paragraph with your additional references. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looks good. Also I missed the paragraph on the trademark from the 1983 minutes (I was to into the 1982 minutes in the para above - must be losing the will to review!). I think that addition is good. Just spent some time struggling to search patents/trademarks and it looks like this was the claim rejected in 1983 after being "published for opposition. Not sure if that is any help or helps clarify a current position. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Besides being another source for what's already summarised as a sideline to the main list, I think this wouldn't add a great deal more. In fact, I now get the feeling that the whole "joy" of the race, its simplicity, history etc has been overwhelmed by the modern-day nastiness if anything. Bitter-sweet, and mildly ironic considering what happened this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm being anal about citing then 2010 should probably have that cite in every column and date, starting point, country, balloon name (probably the XLS sheet) on headings. Either that or use a general reference. Actually can I be fairly picky here as it is a fairly easy change. Unless there is a reason to, can you use http://www.coupegordonbennett.org/history/results (current ref 24) to cite headings where possible (as it's plain HTML) and then the spreadsheet for stuff not covered by that. I think that should be okay but you'll know better than me.
- Done, general ref added. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Be consistent with the format field linked or not and ALL CAPS or not - I prefer the former, but only require consistency :)~~
- Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Infobox needs updating per 2010~~
- Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is too much effort that is fine but for visual appeal I quite like to ofset the spacing of stars and references with sort keys and {{0}}. If you are interested and want code to copy, my current FLC has it ;)
- I'm not sure what you mean, I'm delighted with the way this list looks (in Safari, of course!). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see it now. Seems incredibly complicated markup to just move that * over a bit. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes but it looks better, especially for the references (not so much the *) but in for a penny... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the Ulrich refs have fore/surnames mixed up I think. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this may be the last request I get from TRM for a review! However, he's had to put up with me being fairly picky and, I believe, we have now reached a stage which better reflects the true histroy. I'm glad the legal battle and unsactioned unofficial era is now covered but am sorry if I have taken away from the simplistic joy of the race to you or any readers. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those afraid to click "show", Rambo's Revenge's review has been second to none, unflinching in asking the same question until I answer it, negotiating over detail, analysing fact, not to mention heading off to find resources to help me improve the list, and I'm the first to admit that I had no idea it was going to be this way. However, I think as a result of this (and the other reviews here), we already have the world's best singular resource on this subject. So well done everyone, and thanks to RR for the excruciating review (!)... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a reason why the infobox only lists 1 person as the most recent winner when the list shows 2 people as the the winning crew? I tried to help you update, but did not when I notice this discrepancy.—Chris!_c/t 19:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but it is probably the pilot (the table lists co-pilots too if you read the key) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's the pilot with seven wins, who has had different co-pilots. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, that makes sense. Sorry for not reading carefully.—Chris!_c/t 20:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I already gave a review on the talk page, so half (or more) of the battle is already done. Only a couple of new things to report:

~~"to host the trophy. The trophy...". Try not to have this kind of repetition, if possible.~~
~~There's a note D in the table, but it's not showing up in the notes section.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Got both of these I think, thank you! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support – Very, very nice. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

No red links in the See also section.

Agreed, gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 6 needs some form of work/publisher

Done, added. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 10; "Ulrich, Hohmann Sr." Shouldn't this be "Ulrich Sr., Hohmann"?

Yessum. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 12 needs the location, lots of Bulletins, after all.

Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 14, same thing.

Ditto ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"interrupted by World War I and in 1931" Try 'interrupted by World War I from 1914–1919, and again in 1931.'

Don't like, as this implies the 1931 break was interrupted as a result of WWI. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question. Should the names of the balloons by italicised as ships are?

Not stupid, no clear precedent, so I'm keeping it as-is right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On September 30, the USA retrieve crew suggested" Retrieval?

Changed (although that's what the source said) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Austria won six in a row (And France later three), why didn't they keep the trophy?

This has been discussed above - the rules say the "could" keep the trophy but would have to start a new contest up, which must have happened. There's nothing specific about it in any source I can find...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008, shouldn't the country be given as United Kingdom, not Great Britain?

No, GBR is the "country", not UK. UK includes Northern Ireland, (i.e. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - it's a hornet's nest though, I have a "British" passport despite being English and living in the UK. You tell me what I'm supposed to do...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 20:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged Courcelles.. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I would probably go through and italicise the balloon names, but no big deal. Courcelles 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your wish is my command. I found some limited advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text_formatting)#Italic face, it didn't mention balloons but I guess they are analagous to ships, so italics done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.