![]() | The Hardest Day has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 18, 2017, and August 18, 2020. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Harrison49 ( talk) 12:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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)
"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)
The article today is a rich mix of:
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)
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)
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.
![]() | The Hardest Day has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 18, 2017, and August 18, 2020. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Harrison49 ( talk) 12:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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)
"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)
The article today is a rich mix of:
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)
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)
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.