Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Johnny Checketts

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.

Article promoted by CPA-5 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Johnny Checketts edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

In a change from VC recipients of the First World War, I bring an article on Johnny Checketts, one of New Zealand's fighter pilots of the Second World War, for the consideration of reviewers. It was significantly expanded early last year and then went through a GA review. Thanks in advance to those who stop by to review this one. Zawed (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent article. A couple of bits to prove that I read it:
- "Morse code" should have a capital M and link it.
- Format the first London Gazette extract like the second one.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye7, I have actioned both points. Cheers,

Support ~~Comments~~ from AustralianRupert: G'day, Zawed, this looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

published in the London Gazette --> London Gazette should be italics
suggest formatting the External links consistency
aboard The Dominion Monarch or aboard the Dominion Monarch?
hunting together, spent a month improving his aerial marksmanship --> "hunting together, and he spent a month improving his aerial marksmanship..."?
"Sailor" Malan, now station commander --> just "Malan" here as he has been introduced already
of Al Deere, also flying as --> just "Deere" here as he has been introduced already
"the Biggin Hill wing" v. "the Biggin Wing"
Hawker Typhoon fighter–bomber --> I'm not sure about the endash here; probably should just be a hyphen
By the middle of the month, he had destroyed two V-1 flying bombs; the Germans started launching these soon after D-Day -- I think it might be best to flip the two parts of this sentence
1953–54 Royal Tour --> "1953–1954 Royal Tour" per MOS:YEARRANGE
- Pedantry: unless MOS has changed since I last looked, when the year increments by one, two digits for the second bit is okay... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ian Rose: G'day, Ian, I believe the MOS has changed regarding this. The guidance at the cited link above is as follows: e.g. "1881–1886; 1881–1992 (not 1881–86; 1881 – 1992)". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure but see the next clause: "Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years..." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, yes, I see. You are correct, apologies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
former business partner, Leonard Wright --> just "Wright" here as he has already been introduced
the show was Al Deere --> as above

Thanks for the review AR. Anyway, I have actioned the issues identified, my edits are here. I found an extra external link that I thought worthwhile adding. Thanks again. PS: I hope you are having a bit of a break from the fires, at least the rain the last couple of days will be a bit of a respite. Zawed (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Zawed, unfortunately we haven't had any rain where I am -- I have a couple of days off, though, which I'm thankful for, as it has been quite hectic. Taking up more of a static/planning role next week in my home location so shouldn't have to get on the road again at least for a few weeks. The fires around my house have been brought under control with the help of air support, so it makes it easier to focus on the job at hand rather than worrying about the family while I'm gone. Anyway, added my support to the article -- thanks for your efforts. My stepmother is a Kiwi whose father served in the Middle East and Italy, so I always find your articles on New Zealanders quite fascinating. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ This article is in great shape. I've added a few links, and also have a few minor comments:

"Despite this training..." Not sure about this. While OTUs were focused on particular aircraft types, they also were the final stage of preparing airmen for combat. Most of the tactics Checketts would have learned would have been applicable to the Spitfire.

I have slightly rephrased. Zawed (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"and also received an honorary commission in the Free French Air Forces" - do we know why?

The source doesn't explicitly state why but I believe it was because he often flew alongside Free French squadrons when at Biggin Hill with 611 Squadron. I have mentioned the presence of Free French squadrons to let the reader make the connection. Zawed (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"He made a request to return to operational duty but this was denied; the RAF considered that he needed a low pressure role" - I think that the RAF was also reluctant to return escaped airmen to combat over Europe due to the risk that they would 'blow' their escape network if they were shot down again and captured.

I'm sure that this would have been a factor but the source doesn't explicitly state this. I have expanded on this point though. Zawed (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This bio is an interesting example of how the RAF rotated its pilots in and out of combat and was alert to issues around fatigue. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the external links are a bit odd - I don't understand why news stories are being linked under totally different titles than what the story used, and with no details of their authorship, etc. The links to the NZ Herald and Telegraph stories are also dead. I'd suggest tweaking this to 'further reading' if these stories are worth including but not referencing and having more formal links for the videos explaining their publishing details. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those were pretty aged and I have removed most of them now; looking at the ones that worked, they don't add anything not already in the article. The "This is Your Life" link will be of interest so will leave this - I think the description is appropriate, let me know what you think. Nick, thanks for taking a look at this one. I have responded to your points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now all addressed - great work here. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from Ian -- because it's air force... ;-)

He was considered by his employers to be a reliable worker -- this seems overly detailed, being a mechanic is not where his notability lies.

Fair enough, I have trimmed this. Zawed (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the wing's No. 341 Squadron destroying a further five aircraft, and neither squadron suffering any casualties, they were recognised for their efforts with congratulatory telegram from Winston Churchill -- just a bit unsure here if it's the wing or the squadron that received the telegram (I assume the latter but perhaps best make clearer); as an aside, do we happen to have a further source for this telegram?

It was the wing, and have rephrased (and expanded a little) on this with an extra source. Zawed (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: No alarm bells re. reliability and formatting looks okay.
Image review: All look okay except File:Spitfire V 485-2.jpg. I'm dubious about he "Assumed British Government" attribution, and when I try to follow the link to the original image it times out.

That image is from the NZ official history (Thompson 1953). According to the list of illustrations from the history, the image is credited to the Air Ministry Information Section so it is British Government. Zawed (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks but I can't seem to find the bit where it's credited to Air Ministry Information Section... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its at the very end of that linked web page. Some photo listings have credits immediately after their description but at the bottom it says anything not credited is come from the Air Ministry Information Section. Zawed (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian Rose, I should have pinged you RE my reply above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: - if you want something that's more clear-cut for an eventual FAC (so as to avoid any questions there), you might consider this similar image: File:Aircraft of the Royal Air Force, 1939-1945- Supermarine Spitfire. CH5429.jpg. It's also a bit better quality. Just a thought. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: thanks but I was really hoping to use a photo of Spitfires in service with No. 485 Squadron. Exploring the related links on that image you provided I was able to track down an appropriate photo and replace the existing one. Thanks for the lead. @Ian Rose: image replaced with one with a much better provenance. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard about this guy so pleased to have that gap in knowledge filled in. Shame about the circumstances in which he left the service but at least he made a career afterwards. Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose: thanks for the review. I have responded to your points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Ian are you happy with the replacement image? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, big apologies for my tardiness. I like the new image and I'd have thought the Crown Copyright licensing appropriate but I'm trying to recall if we need to worry about IWM saying it's licensing purely for non-commercial purposes -- if I remember the rules, WP is non-commercial but we basically give the world carte blanche to use our stuff for fun or profit. Nikki, can you assuage my concerns here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that we can't use images that only have an NC license. However, this is not a concern in most cases with IWM images (and assuming we're talking about File:Spitfire_VB_of_485_Squadron.jpg, in this specific case as well) because we follow the doctrine that reproducing a 2D work does not garner a new copyright, and therefore so long as the underlying image is free - as it is in this case due to the expiration of Crown copyright, which is declared to apply worldwide - then we treat the upload as free. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.