Jump to content

Talk:Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time


Tick box

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments on GA criteria

[edit]
Pass
  • Stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has an appropriate reference section. I'll make my customary complaint when an article uses the less popular short citation method. The short citation method creates an irritating difficulty for reader (and GA reviewer) in that the source title and page number are in two different places. This is easily resolved by using the more conventional (and most widely used on Wikipedia) system of long citation in which all the relevant information is provided in one place. I understand that some editors prefer the short citation method for their own personal reasons, and that it is accepted and within GA criteria, but please do consider that some readers may which to consult the sources and the long citation method is more convenient. The short citation method is appropriate for print publications where space on individual pages is an issue - but is pointless on Wikipedia, even when printed out, because all the cites appear on the same page so there is no real space saving. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are relevant and have appropriate captions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major aspects. While I have noted minor details missing, there is nothing major - the article appears to be a reasonable account of his life. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR. I have seen no evidence of OR. Material in the article matches what I am reading in sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No bias. What I am reading in the article is fair, neutral and accurate and in line with sources. There is a slight tendency to use dramatic language more appropriate to a Boys Own comic than an encyclopedia, but I suspect that is due to the tone of the sources used, and there isn't that much dramatic language, and I can't imagine anyone reading the article to really complain about it given the subject matter. Indeed, it is a somewhat sober account of what was a somewhat heroic and dramatic life. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query
File:Johnsonsguncamerafootage.jpg is tagged as needing source information. The other images appear to be scans from books - could the relevant information from those books be also scanned to verify they are acceptable to be used? Looking at the images, it would appear highly likely they are UK government photos (camera footage of a plane being shot down, for example); however, evidence is helpful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is any one section that is overly detailed, though on occasions in general there may be a lack of focus. The information that he would breakfast at RAF Duxford then drive round to chat with other pilots is perhaps more suited to full length book than an article in a general encyclopaedia - though, as always, making such judgements is difficult, and can often come down to editorial decision. I'll see if I can trim a little as I read through. If I trim too much, please just put it back, and we can talk about it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio. Though I don't have a copy of Johnnie Johnson: Spitfire Top Gun, Google does bring up the book when certain phrases from this article are used which indicates that the text has at times been too closely followed. I have once before been embarrassed when an article I passed as a Good Article was later revealed to be a copyright violation (Talk:Roman_Dacia#Copyright_violations_.2F_plagiarism), so I tend to be cautious. Could those editors who have used that book and any other as a source please re-check that when bringing over information, they have done so appropriately, following the guidance at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Where needed, please adjust the wording so it doesn't follow the source closely. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has been resolved. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fail


General comments

[edit]
  • Looks good. At first glance I'm not seeing many problems: some forced size images, and possibly some inappropriate external links, but nothing else is standing out. Well written and richly cited. I'll check sources and do a little background reading then do the review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just started reading the article and have come upon a little stumbling block. The first paragraph is cited to one source. I've had a search, and the information it contains does not appear to be found other than in that source, which is not available online. I thought one piece of information would be easy to track down: "Charlie Rosswell ... won the Military Cross with the Royal Fusiliers", but there appears to be no record of this in the regular places such as forces-war-records.co.uk. Can someone scan the relevant pages of Johnnie Johnson: Spitfire Top Gun and email them to me. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says he broke his collar bone playing for Chingford Rugby Club. Is it known when the family moved from the Midlands to Chingford? If it's not know, just to help the reader, could a sentence be placed to indicate that the family did move at some point to Chingford? Example: "At some point the family moved to Chingford as Johnson broke his collar bone playing rugby for Chingford Rugby Club in 1938". SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Background reading indicates that while born in Barrow upon Soar, Johnson and his family lived in Melton Mowbray - that was where his father was the local policeman. I'm not getting any further info on the rugby injury. Is it likely that he was injured playing against Chingford rather than for them? Or that he was injured a little later in his life when he was working near Chingford, and so more likely to be playing for that Rugby team? Ah! Got it. Just worked out the dates and ages - the info is slightly misplaced. I'll adjust. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has been fixed. Now placed with his job at Loughton which I think is near Chingford.' Spinney Hill (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will merge these two. Let me know if that is thought to be a mistake. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Appreciate the effort and thanks for the review. Some unusual requests, but I'll deal with them in due course. I would appreciate it if, rather than changing things, we could do it the more traditional route. Reviewer makes comment-discuss-then maybe change. I have a big problem with title changes which look terrible and totally inappropriate. Moreover, they are contrary to ever single fighter pilot article I have done to date. I realise I have taken out some of the changes that will definitely will be required, but I will put them back in as and when. Thanks again. Dapi89 (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted re: photographs.
Definitely oppose merger. I think pre-war and combat periods are separate and distinct. See Archie McKellar/Hans-Joachim Marseille.
Is a scan of this rather small bit of info really needed? I thought the reason we used citations was so we didn't have to jump through these kinds of hoops.
Definitely no copyvio. Copying Sarkar, the way he writes, was going to take a year. I did write my own way.
Just want to reiterate, appreciate the time, and those bits which I have removed to get back the headings I used will be restored! Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is copyvio. I just took one phrase at random: "Johnson's first contact with enemy fighters did not go as planned" - this is word for word as it appears in Johnnie Johnson: Spitfire Top Gun. Unless you admit to this and do something about this, then I will close this review as a fail and report this article as a copyright violation. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That there is copyvio doesn't mean it was deliberate, so please don't feel I am accusing you of anything. Copyvio can happen accidentally. But it does need looking into as it has legal implications for Wikipedia, and can harm our reputation. If you don't wish to look into the matter yourself, then let me know, I'll put a copyvio notice on the article, order the book, and check it out myself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright violation. I have no idea what mechanism/research tool you are using on the internet, or however else you are trying to look things up, but I can assure you there is nothing in that book on page 50 (citation number 37 given), or in ANY surrounding pages, that REMOTELY matches the wording in the this article. The joke of it is, it isn't even paraphrased!!! I put that together from the information on the page!!!
So, I have nothing to admit to (and that language is a bit offensive). Especially so since the reviewer acknowledges he/she has not got the book and cannot prove what they say.
With that in mind, if you feel I am inherent liar, get the book and look for yourself. But I object to any copyright violation tag being added in the meantime. But as I say, I won't be doing anything about it in the meantime, because there is nothing to be done. Best. Dapi89 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[edit]

Review on hold until concerns regarding copyvio are resolved. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author, Dilip Sarkar, has checked the article and has no problems with usage of sources he has authored, other than with a couple of minor corrections which I have forwarded to Dapi89. It appears that Google Books was returning a false positive. I unreservedly apologise to Dapi89 for this misunderstanding. There is no copyvio in the article. I will shortly read through the article again to see if this review can be closed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do likewise to check all related citations and quotations. All the loose ends that have been identified by the reviewer will be fixed in the next day or so. Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Believe images now fixed. Dapi89 (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about the uncle in the R.F and education is in Sarkar p. 11 & 13. Dapi89 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still am not receiving e-mail. Dapi89 (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it really matters. I corrected one item, and I'll look into what else he said and correct that. But you might want to check that your email details are correct. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bit I can't correct is regarding which book has been used for sourcing: Dilip Sarkar says, "Secondly, your author references my book 'Spitfire Top Gun', Amberley, 2011. This is wrong. 'Johnnie Johnson: Spitfire Top Gun, Part One, was published by Ramrod Publications in 2002; 'Johnnie Johnson: Spitfire Top Gun, Part Two', by Victory Books in 2005. The book to which your author refers is actually 'Spitfire Ace of Aces: The True Wartime Story of Johnnie Johnson', Amberley, 2011." Could that be checked and amended as appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And where are we regarding the photos? SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those two minor issues are all that remains. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised it went unnoticed for so long. Yes, copy and paste error.
Think lead image issue resolved (?) Dapi89 (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johnnie_Johnson_(RAF_officer)/GA1&oldid=1240061275"