Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Charles Inglis (engineer)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Inglis (engineer)

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

I have been working on this article for quite a while and it is now as complete as I feel I can make it. I would like to take it to FAC eventually as it would be the first biography of a civil engineer to become an FA (I think a few mechanical and aerospace engineers have made it). This nom was prompted by a recent discussion with Dank on my talkpage and, whilst its last PR was almost a year ago, he has agreed to copyedit it during the A-class review. I hope you enjoy reading the article - Dumelow (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

I don't understand what this bit is saying: "[The new bridge] was introduced in 1941. The Inglis remained in use with the army for some time owing to a lack of resources for new bridge types, and some units, such as the 1st Canadian Infantry Division, were still being introduced to the Inglis Bridge in 1941."

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits Dank which I agree with. I have reworded the section about the Inglis and Bailey bridges to clarify. The basic idea I was trying to convey was that the Bailey Bridge was introduced to replace the Inglis Bridge but because there were few resources to allocate to Bailey production the Inglis remained in use in rear areas and with the Canadians. Hopefully this comes across better now - Dumelow (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can't judge whether it's comprehensive, but it certainly seems so and it's a very interesting, informative, and well-written piece. Having walked over the Inglis bridge in Monmouth and taken an interest in the relevant display in the local museum while working on the Monmouthpedia project, I couldn't resist taking a look at this. I do have a handful of comments, which are below:

Thanks for taking a look HJ. I didn't know about the Monmouth museum, I must take a look if I am ever down that way (and walk over the bridge of course!). I will try to work through your points below today - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was not expected to survive – do we know why or what was wrong with him?

Unfortunately the source (Baker 1943) only says: "His mother died eleven days later and he was hurriedly baptized in the drawing room a few days after his birth as he was not expected to survive." so I am none the wiser - Dumelow (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I was just curious, but I can't complain if it's not in the sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was during this time that he began his lifelong study of vibration and its effects on materials, particularly bridges – was it this that sparked his interest, or was it something he'd been interested in before?

Again it is not really clear from the source ("At this time, however, he also began a study, which lasted throughout his life, on the subject of mechanical vibration") but I would suspect (but cannot prove) that it arose from his involvement with the design of the bridges on the District line extension which would have required him to check the suitability of the bridges under various imposed vibrations - Dumelow (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1901 Inglis was made a fellow of King's College – by my maths, that would make him about 21 at the time; that seems very early in his career to be receiving honours. Was that unusual?

He would have been 26 that year. Once more the sources do not clarify this. I am not overly familiar with the workings of Cambridge colleges but I think the position of research fellow was often granted to those who undertook research in association with the college even when on a temporary and unpaid basis. I guess that he perhaps used some of the facilities of his alma mater in writing his paper on the balancing of engines - Dumelow (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So much for my maths! Just as well I'm not an engineer! ;) Your explanation sounds plausible; I'm more used to hearing "fellow" in the context of prestigious learned societies (which is what made me think it was very early in his career), but it would make sense that it had a slightly different meaning in a university. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need five citations after the first serious modern work on the fracturing of materials?

I think that must have arisen after several earlier sentences were merged together. I have pruned it down to three - Dumelow (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the bridge was produced in limited quantities from 1940 it was largely replaced by the Bailey bridge introduced in 1941 – does that mean the Bailey bridge was introduced from 1941 or the Inglis bridge was produce in limited quantities from 1941? You need another comma or two I think, but where depends on the desired meaning.

I intended the former. I have added a comma after "Bailey bridge" which I think helps clarify this - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a fact that troubled Inglis – what troubled him about it? —HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think he felt that the War Office didn't appreciate that his design still had potential. The quote from the source is "His designs were very little used in the second World War, a neglect which he felt rather keenly...". Perhaps there is a better way to phrase this in the article? - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "troubled" in that context implies that he thought there was something wrong with the Bailey bridge; your comment suggests he was disappointed that his design was replaced without perhaps realising its full potential. Assuming it's the latter, you could just say that (or words to that effect), or replace "troubled" with "disappointed" or similar.

Yes that is a much better way to put it. I have made the replacement - Dumelow (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support; Very interesting chap :) some comments:

Thanks, glad you enjoyed the article - Dumelow (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

he was elected head boy and received a scholarship..; there is a slight implication he received the scholarship because of being elected head boy. Is that the case?

I hadn't intended to imply a connection (it isn't noted in the sources, though it could be one of the things they looked for when awarding scholarships). I linked them as both occurred in his final year at Cheltenham College. Is there a way to keep them in the same sentence without using "and"? - Dumelow (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inglis was 22nd wrangler; I had to click the link to find out what this mean't. Perhaps make a note?

I have tried to do so, hope it makes it a bit clearer. I am sure that Oxbridge etiquette was designed to confuse the rest of us. - Dumelow (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

he remained for a fourth year, achieving first class honours in Mechanical Sciences; I'm not sure this follows on from the previous fragment, unless I am misunderstanding the initial fragment.

He received a bachelor's degree in the Mathematics tripos after three years but chose to remain at Cambridge for a fourth year to study the mechanical sciences tripos. Perhaps there's some way I can clarify this? - Dumelow (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was also a follower of the Cambridge University Rugby Union team, watching their matches at Grange Road; is this of particular significance? I'm not suggesting it's removal, just curious.

I included it in the context of his sporting achievements to show an interest in watching sport and not just participating. It is of no particular relevance but I think it helps to flesh out the character of the man - Dumelow (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Errant ^(chat!) 17:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that all looks OK to me :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.