Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Francis Jackson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

John Francis Jackson[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)


I don't seem to be creating many new articles these days but rather expanding/improving existing ones as I come across new sources. This is a case in point, one that's been GA for some time but which I feel now has the detail to reach A-Class. "Old John" Jackson, who at 34 was quite ancient by fighter-pilot standards, achieved notability not just as an ace but as the commanding officer of No. 75 Squadron RAAF in the Battle of Port Moresby in 1942. From what I've gathered (not explicitly enough to put it in the article, admittedly) he didn't even have to take this assignment, he just wanted to defend Australia when things were looking particularly grim. He was also independently wealthy, yet there was still something of the country bumpkin about him -- witness his Crocodile Dundee moment in the Alexandria hotel... ;-) Anyway, hope the article does him justice -- tks in advance for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It occurs to me that this might make a good TFA for 28 April, which of course would mean taking it to FAC after a successful outcome here, so any thoughts on those (related) possibilities are also welcome...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Minor comments follow:
  • "His brother Arthur (born 1919), also a pilot and keen to join the Air Force, was killed in a flying accident later that month.[6][7] Two other brothers, Edward (born 1915) and Leslie (born 1917), joined the RAAF in November." - I found the dates of birth for the brothers broke up the flow a bit, and they might be unnecessary in this context.
  • "Jackson's first taste of action " - felt a bit "boy's own" in tone!
  • "essentionally" - "essentially"? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tweaked/corrected things -- tks for review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looks good to me, Ian. I couldn't find anything to pick fault with. I read it for prose and presentation/style. I didn't check images, though, as I've only got limited download on my new plan. Apologies if I missed anything, but it looks like an A-class article to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tks mate -- FWIW, I personally uploaded all the images so will vouch for their (pre-1955) licensing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Great work with this article - it was an interesting read. I have the following comments on it though:

  • "Jackson returned to Australia in November 1941 to serve in the South West Pacific." - I'm not sure about this. The South West Pacific Command wasn't set up until several months after this date, so the terminology seems wrong. It also implies that his return was part of the build-up to the Pacific War, which is likely, but not in the ADB entry.
    • Fair enough, that was a hangover from an earlier version that pretty well cut straight from the Middle East to New Guinea, so it's kind of redundant now anyway; even then, the region rather than the command was intended, but the link probably confused matters.
      • To clarify, simply removed "to serve in the South West Pacific". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of Jackson's file in the NAA seems OK to me, but can you please add the relevant page/scan numbers?
    • Will do.
      • Done -- conveniently, everything I used was contained on one page, and a type-written one at that! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That seems to be the way with NAA files: they're either really easy to use or a total mess. I'd suggest that you update the access date though, as I've seen some instances where the NAA has added extra pages to files. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. Added pages? Either that or mysteriously removed the digital version entirely, like they did to me in the middle of developing Brian Eaton. Fortunately before it disappeared I'd taken note of the publishing details of an excellent post-retirement newspaper interview that appeared in the file and was able to locate it at the State Library on (god help us) microfiche -- the lengths we go to for nought but the satisfaction of writing a decent article, and some kudos from colleagues who are just as dedicated (or mad)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I try not to think in terms of cost-benefit ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references to the World War 2 Nominal Roll should include publisher details
    • Invoking precedent if I may, this is the usual way I cite online refs like the roll and it's always been accepted at A/FA to date. I don't think it's any different to say note #11 (23 Squadron RAAF at Australian War Memorial).
      • OK fair enough. FA reviewers seem to be getting a bit more thingy about publisher details, but if this style works then there's no need to change it (and its an easy fix if someone does raise it at FAC anyway). Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images are PD (no action required)
  • I've checked the references to Johnston. While they're OK, you could add more from the material on page 158 about how Jackson was the opposite of a stereotypical fighter ace (eg, he was "balding, ambling and no extrovert")
    • Done.
  • The ADB entry needs to have author, publishing date and publisher details added
    • Ditto WW2 Nominal Roll response, given its the online version of the ADB I'm using.
  • I've spot checked the ADB references, and they're also OK. You might want to tweak the sentence which begins with " In 1936 he competed in the South Australian centenary air race" though, as its wording is very similar to that used by the ADB (though there's not really much scope to word things very differently)
    • I've tweaked a bit; the only other version I could think of was "In 1936 he competed [or "took part"] in an air race to celebrate South Australia's centenary" but it sounded a bit contrived to me...
  • Should 'Murdoch Book' in the Ewer reference be 'Murdoch Books'?
    • Yup, tks.
  • 'Osprey' should probably be 'Osprey Publishing' (which is the name used in the publishing details pages of its books) Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments are now addressed - please see my extra note above though. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/John_Francis_Jackson&oldid=1075714039"