This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Britain article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Battle of Britain was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Additionally, the figure of 126 planes shot down is heavily questioned; it's twice as many as any other squadron, including the Polish pilots of 302. I do not mean to suggest the Poles of 303 inflated their kills, but there has been some confusion somewhere along the way to get this figure. Polish historian Jacek Kutzner, who has done extensive research on the squadron, revises the figure down to 58.8, which is still the highest, but possibly more realistic. Regardless, the figure of 126 should stop being accepted as outright fact. 2A00:23C5:CE18:BA01:319F:B5C2:B534:1C6E (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At present the article only says that 303 Sqn pilots filed 126 claims and that 303 Sqn was possibly the highest-scoring Hurricane squadron. As previously mentioned, John Alcorn, in 'Battle of Britain Top Guns: Update' (Aeroplane, July 2000, pp.24-29), says that 303 Sqn actually filed 121 claims of which 45 are substantiated by post-war research, an accuracy rate of 37% (one of the lowest accuracy rates in the RAF, and the only ones lower than that tended to be from squadrons with only a few kills, so the proportional effect is larger). Although 303 Sqn were among the worst overclaimers, by a factor of almost 3:1 -- perhaps an index of their enthusiasm -- they were nevertheless the highest-scoring Hurricane squadron (the next best was 501 Sqn with 40.5 kills) and the third highest-scoring of all RAF squadrons, after 603 Sqn with 57.5 kills and and 609 Sqn with 51.5, both these being Spitfire squadrons. Incidentally, 603 Sqn's 85.8 claims were 67% accurate and 609 Sqn's 86 claims were 60% accurate. But 303 Sqn's actual kill record was very good considering that they only entered the battle when it was halfway through. Dowding's suggestion that the outcome of the battle might have been different without the Poles was polite hyperbole (there were almost as many New Zealanders in Fighter Command, Al Deere for one, and they didn't have to be taught English, or the basics of R/T discipline which was central to Fighter Command's effort), but the Poles certainly did their bit. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the strategic bombing doctrine and the related credo "the bomber always gets through" determined for a long time the military thinking. At first, the higher echelons of military and and of politics did not expect that a suitable and effective defense was even possible. The Bannertalk16:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Breadner is listed under the commanders and leaders section. However, unless I am missing something, in the summer of 1940 he was in an administrative role in Canada and not actual in command of anything related to the battle. I see no reason for him to be so designated and propose removing his name. To my thinking the commanders and leaders should be those actually in command, i.e. Dowding and his four group commanders. HenryPulleine (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Breadner was the Canadian Chief of Air Staff during the Battle of Britain. So I think he was technically in command of the Canadian Squadrons involved. For the rest, I noticed that he is not mentioned anywhere in the article outside the infobox. So yes, I think his name can be removed. The Bannertalk13:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
