Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Mike Jackson

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Peer review

Mike Jackson edit

I've put quite a bit of work into this and got it to GA. I'd like to take it to A-class and, eventually, FAC, but I'm looking for suggestions to make the journey smoother. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

  • Please check my edit summaries.
  • "Mentioned in Despatches" seems odd to me, almost like a "proper verb". Is this standard capitalization in BritEng? Would it work to lowercase it, keep the link, and put it in quote marks?
    • the article seems to do something like that, so I've de-capitalised it
  • "Jackson considered resigning his commission, wondering whether he "had reached [his] ceiling" and missed his chance for promotion to brigadier." It's not clear to me how wondering about resigning his commission led to the loss of a chance at brigadier. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then General Wesley Clark": Although he's retired, I still hear him introduced as "General". Perhaps drop the "then".
    • I changed a comma to an mdash, which I makes it clear that the SACEUR was then Clark, not that Clark was then a general
      • "then" is used when there's a risk that the reader will think that we're implying that Wesley Clark is still the SACEUR. I don't think they will, so I've removed it, but YMMV. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was a risk of an armed confrontation with the Russians": Any word describing a state of mind ("risk" is subjective) should usually be attributed. Do the sources say who was worried about the risk?
    • Hmm, risk might not be the right word. Would "chance" or something similar work?
      • It's a POV problem I think. Judging from the "macho Jacko" nickname and his promotion, there was support for the truth of that statement in Britain. Some in the American military, from what you're saying, either didn't believe this or weren't willing to say they believed it. So my preference would be either to cite an expert making a credible case that it was or wasn't believable, or to attribute the quoted statement, rather than asserting it as truth. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Risk" isn't necessarily the right word, but I don't think anybody really doubts that the result of following the order would have been some form of confrontation with the Russians. The debate is over whether Jackson should have obeyed Clark because orders are orders. The version of events is essentially the same in the relevant section of Clark's article. Thinking about it, the event might be worthy of its own article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I get a different sense of what happened from the relevant section of Clark's article, including this: "Jackson has said he refused to take action because he did not believe it was worth the risk of a military confrontation with the Russians, instead insisting that troops encircle the airfield—a decision which led to the Russian military surrendering control within two days without conflict." I think some details such as that one would help clarify what happened. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to give the army greater flexibility and capability, and so better positioned to meet modern challenges.": I don't know what the last part means. If specific modern challenges were meant, it's usually better to mention them. Otherwise, maybe something shorter: "to give the army greater flexibility and modernise it".
    • I removed that bit, it just sounded like fluff to me (I'm not sure why I added it in the first place!   Facepalm)
  • Americans won't know that "Pte" stands for "Private"; I don't have a preference on how to handle this.
    • It was a direct quote, but I broke it up a bit to remove the abbreviation.
  • I'm not certain about commas with British unit names. In AmEng, I'd say that "Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment" and "Honorary Colonel, the Rifle Volunteers" need commas at the ends.
    • Do you mean "Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, in 1997" as opposed to the current "Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment in 1997"? You may have a point there.
  • oxforddictionaries.com and American dictionaries prefer "postwar" to "post-war". (I made the edit.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for reviewers

  • The nominator has asked on my talk page whether this is looking good enough to take it to A-class review; any thoughts? My only remaining issue is the "risk" sentence (see above), but I generally focus on prose. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria edit

I'm not typically a MILHIST reviewer, but HJ asked me to comment here, so here goes:

  • File:Genmikejackson.png needs more information. Author is listed as "NATO", which encompasses more than the US Army/DoD of the licensing tag. I'm assuming the author is not known, but is it known that they're American? Do you have evidence of this or a web link to verify licensing?
    • Removed :(. It's been there for years, the original uploader hasn't edited since 2009 and I can;t find it anywhere on the web. Shame, it's the only purportedly free image of him in uniform.
  • Wikilink Pristina in lead?
    • I linked tot he airport article
  • "claims...claims" - repetitive phrasing
    • Fixed
  • Watch for British terms and concepts that might not be familiar to non-Brit readers - for example, "read" meaning to study is not a term typically used in the Americas, and "Birthday Honours" is a very foreign concept that needs to be linked or explained
    • "Read" is deliberate to avoid "studied Russian studies"; Birthday honours linked.
  • Some overlinking - mentioned in despatches linked twice in quick succession, as is Lieutenant-General (United Kingdom)
    • Fixed
  • Did he attend Sandhurst? The category is present, but this isn't specified in the article text
    • Added
  • "He was granted the substantive rank of major general in June 1992, with seniority from October 1991" - as someone with limited military knowledge, I don't understand what this means
    • Clarified
  • Don't use contractions outside of quotes
    • Fixed
  • "I won't start World War III for you" - this quote doesn't appear in article text, so should be cited in the lead. This source has the quote, but words it differently, as does this source; I'm not sure which is correct
    • Every news report I've read on it reports the quote slightly differently. That wording is from his autobiography, but I've replaced it with the Beeb's version/
  • "The point became moot when the US government prevailed upon Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria to prevent Russia using their airspace to fly in reinforcements" - source?
  • "done his homework" - wording different in cited source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney edit

  • He was present during the events of Bloody Sunday, when soldiers from 1 PARA opened fire on protesters in Derry on 30 January 1972, killing 13 people - makes it sound like he was involved.
    • You might be right. Any suggestions on how to tighten it up?
      • As far as I can recall did it not go something like - he arrived on the scene shortly after the Bloody Sunday shootings ?
  • before deploying to Germany as chief of staff to the Berlin Infantry Brigade. - units are deployed personnel are posted.
    • I'm not sure about that, but changed
  • Same with - Jackson deployed to Bosnia and Herzegovina in March 1999

otherwise looks good Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton edit

I just waded in and rearranged some sentences and made some phrase changes. It's not a very collegial approach, I know, but it gets things done quickly and my saving grace is that I don't mind at all if my stuff gets reverted. Thanks for doing the hard yards. Cheers, Rumiton (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A small point. Are Army Boards things of which one becomes a member? Is not the usual expression gaining a "seat" on the board?
    • I've found that writers appreciate not having to make the edits, as long as you've gained their trust and let them know they can revert at will. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Mike_Jackson&oldid=1075714392"