Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mike Jackson/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011.

Mike Jackson

 * Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, we have a whisky-drinking, cigar-smoking outspoken general! If this passes, I believe it will be only the second FA on a British general and the first on a British Chief of the General Staff. To a limited extent, I've followed parts of Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay (the only current FA on a British general). I've had a GAN, a PR and a recently closed MilHist A-class review, all of which have gone well, so I'm bringing it here. Obviously, I wouldn't nominate it if I didn't think it met the criteria, but this is my first FAC so, while I'm looking forward to feedback, please be gentle! Thanks in advance to reviewers for their time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is very well-written, with good prose. There does need to be a bit of clarification regarding his second wife. The article says "Amanda is the mother of four", but it doesn't say whether the children are all by Mike Jackson.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. Amanda is his daughter, so her four children are Jackson's grandchildren. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me, I misread it. I thought Amanda was his wife-sorry about that. It's an informative article about an interesting person that merits FA status. I especially like how you described his harrowing experienes in the aftermath of the Warrenpoint attacks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences should not end in periods
 * Never can get that one right! Fixed.
 * Images themselves are unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Source review Sources are of good quality, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Formatting on ref 6
 * Well spotted! Fixed.
 * Page ranges should use endashes and should be consistently notated
 * Fixed, courtesy of Courcelles. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Here's a link to the A-class review.
 * It's his father George that got the Croix de Guerre, not George's commanding officer, right? - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed a "he" that you added, but by all means add it back if you think it's needed and, yes, it was George Jackson who got the medal. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ambiguous now because of the "was killed ... was later awarded". That is, "... George Jackson assumed command of a squadron of amphibious landing vehicles after his commanding officer was killed in action, and was later awarded the Belgian Croix de Guerre ..." could be referring to either of them.  Any reviewers disagree? - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've self-reverted.
 * "Despite being advised by the headmaster at Stamford to consider university, Jackson applied to join the British Army in 1961.": To me, the "despite" suggests that Jackson was being at least a little foolish or obstinate for joining the army when he had a shot at being accepted at some university; is that your sense?
 * Before my lifetime, but I think that was the conventional wisdom in 1961. The headmaster certainly thought he was daft not to apply to uni.
 * "Despite" is appropriate here; rejecting the advice of your headmaster is inherently foolish or obstinate for a 17 year old. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but the first paragraph of Early military career might benefit from a more chronological presentation of events.
 * I can see where you're coming from, but I wanted to keep the university stuff together. Since he served for a while before going to uni, I think Sandhurst-uni-Army-uni would be confusing.
 * "Having been an acting major general": This was mentioned in the second sentence previous.
 * . Redundant redundancy removed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments I am very impressed. It is hard to source articles about modern officers. I have some comments to let you know I did read it:
 * Should the war in Afghanistan be included in the infobox?
 * I'm inclined to include conflicts in which he actually served "on the ground", so to speak. Since he was a four-star general running force generation from an office (near the Salisbury Plain, I think), I wouldn't include it in the infobx.
 * But isn't that true of Iraq too? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Even more so. I didn't realise that was in the ibx. Removed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jackson ordered an inquiry into the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers. So, um, what happened to it? Was it covered up?
 * Good question. I'll do some digging. I think a few soldiers were convicted, but my next project might have taken over by then. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * Found and added. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the most high-profile British Army generals since the Second World War My first thought was" "Really?" Then I started thinking of Peter de la Billière, Lord Carver, Gerald Templer... Actually they are all One of the most right?
 * There are certainly many contenders for the title, but "one of" is fairly fluid. He's certainly one of the most written-about.
 * Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the review. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I had a good look at this article during its peer review, and I believe that it meets all of the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Malleus, you've been a big help. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I know the source material pretty well for Mike Jackson, and I'd argue that the article meets the FA criteria.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I've edited on this page in the past and am up to speed on Jackson and support the nomination. Impressive and comprehensive Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I checked article text at an earlier review and sources and images here, and AFAICT (without being a MilHist specialist), everything seems good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, Nikki. For the record, you reviewed the article at its peer review a month ago. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.