Template:Did you know nominations/No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that in its first months of operation during World War II, No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF lacked such basic amenities as hot water, a kitchen, and a telephone system?

• Reviewed: Scatter the Gold

Created by Ian Rose (talk). Self nominated at 13:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC).

• New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. NPOV. Well-cited, including the good hook. The hook is cited by a primary source, but there is no reason to believe it is not reliable. Spot checks reveal no close paraphrasing or copyvios. Edwardx (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• With the most profound apologies if this turns out to be a false alarm, I've pulled this from prep because it sets my Spidey Sense tingling, in that I'm skeptical that the source describes hot water and telephones as "basic amenities" at a 1940 flying school in Queensland (or wherever it was -- that article's very confusing what with No. 3 being disbanded in Victoria to form No. 2 after No. 1 1/2 was added to No. 1/2 in New South Wales...). I'd like to hear a quote from the secondary source. EEng (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since the source (actual images of "Operations Record Book" pages) is available online, EEng, it's easy enough to check that among the items listed in the "Main deficiencies at 31/1/40:" section are "No kitchen, hot water services, street lighting." and "No telephone system." I'll leave it to you to unwind the pull. (If it's the word "amenities" that you're objecting to, it's an easy change to something like "items".) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Before I pulled I tried to find the source online -- can you provide a link? And yes, I said straight out that it's the phrase basic amenities I find problematic, because I was pretty sure that at World War II Australian training camps hot water and telephones were "basic amenities" about as much as complementary turndown service and chocolates on the pillows. And no, I won't unwind the pull, because this kind of nonsense SYNTH is the bread and butter of what's wrong with DYK; the nom and reviewer should come up with a new hook that's actually supported by the source and is more interesting than that army trainees somewhere were brutalized with cold showers. EEng (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't rocket science: FN7 in Notes, which supports the hook phrase (the article uses "basic infrastructure including hot water, a kitchen, and a telephone system"), is to "Royal Australian Air Force (1939–45), p. 134". The "Works consulted" section just below it, which includes said "Royal Australian Air Force (1939–45)", has a link with the "Unit History Sheets: Nos. 1–7 Elementary Flying Training Schools". I clicked on it, and found myself on page 1 of 853. Entering 134 in the page number field takes you to the image of a log book page which has what I quoted above and more besides. While "amenities" may not have been a good choice in the hook wording, the essence is accurate: the camp had what was, by the military's own reckoning, a number of deficiencies including the lack of hot water, kitchen, and phones. Since I said I had found the source and confirmed the information, pulling the hook again—especially without the word "amenities" that you objected to and with the edit summary you used—is disappointing but not surprising, nor is the sudden introduction of the additional justification that the hook is insufficiently interesting to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I got on the Stephens source by mistake. The word basic is completely unjustified. Just because the log noted telephones aren't present doesn't mean they were considered "basic". This material's appearance in the article might be OK given the way it's used there, but as used in the hook it's classic OR and SYNTH that completely misleads the reader. As for "uninteresting", the original hook at least appeared to say that this one facility was different in a special way -- no hot water etc. -- but since it turns out this might, for all we know, have been common, we're left with the mere statement that Camp Godforesaken had cold showers -- and that IS uninteresting. EEng (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, I think you're making a mountain out of molehill. If you don't like "basic amenities" then take it out and say "lacked hot water, a kitchen, and a telephone system" -- I really don't give a damn, but let's not have wild accusations of OR and "misleading the reader". Having taken well around 75 articles on Australian military subjects through DYK and the majority of those all the way to FA, I've seen a great many unit histories as well as other sources, and found nothing to suggest that cold water, no cooking facilities and no phones were par for the course at a training school. If they were, I'm quite sure the unit history wouldn't have highlighted them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"I've seen a great many unit histories as well as other sources, and found nothing to suggest ... I'm quite sure ..." -- I'm going to give you the complement of assuming that, on reconsideration, you'll see that this statement is of exactly the kind against which OR was meant to guard. The reviewer's comment "The hook is cited by a primary source, but there is no reason to believe it is not reliable" shows a complete misunderstanding of OR and PRIMARY -- the question isn't whether they're reliable, but rather whether we can know how to interpret them properly. In this case, for example, the hook jumps to the conclusion that because no-hot-water etc. is mentioned, it must have been an unusual condition.

As for wanting me to fix the hook, when I've done that nominators have been upset that they didn't like the revised hook. It's no big deal. Just come up with a new hook supported by secondary sources see below, with no OR, and everything'll be fine. EEng (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, if you are now the sole arbiter of what passes muster at DYK then I suppose I'm wasting my time, but if that's not the case, I'll see what consensus throws up. I think most people of normal intelligence would consider these items pretty basic but by all means let's not make assumptions. The hook as it stands states the facts very simply and unless someone wants to suggest a better one I'll stick with it. When you've written as many of these training school articles as I have you get a bit bored quoting statistics on the number of graduates or how many accidents they had. The reason I chose this little nugget is precisely because it's unusual among the training schools I've researched. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 * ... that in its first months of operation during World War II, No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF lacked hot water, a kitchen, and a telephone system?

For crying out loud, don't change the hook in place, because that makes nonsense of the discussion so far. I've added your new hook above as ALT1.

One of the things that always amazes me is the amount of effort put into a problematic hook when better hooks are available. How about

ALT2 that in the months after it opened, trainees at [school] made do without beds, desks, hot water, blackboards, typewriters, flags, maps, charts, or "clothing other than stockings"?

EEng (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng is not sole arbiter of what passes muster at DYK, and hooks do not have to be supported by secondary sources.

• New reviewer required for ALT1 hook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

HEye is not sole arbiter of what hooks are still under discussion. (I've removed his stikeout of ALT2.) I should have said supported by secondary sources as necessary, sorry. But the fact remains that ALT0 was way out of bounds. EEng (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)