Talk:Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer)/Archive 1

shambles

I'll greatly expand this article. The highest scoring RAF ace should have a better one than this. Dapi89 (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I probably ought to expalin my reasoning on the footnote issue a bit more. Really, however many times you cite it, a single book is a single source, specific facts may be alluded to on particular pages, so we try and point the reader to the most relevant place by including the page(s) in the footnote, but we should be making the citing as straightforward to follow as possible, putting individual page numbers, into individual footnotes, when supporting the same information does not seem to me to be transparent. Possibly if those pages are also used elsewhere in the article, and we use a named ref to refer to it, there might be a case for splitting a particular page or pages out, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. David Underdown (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(Yet another) Johnnie Johnson

When looking for newspaper obits just now, I found this one http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article473054.ece which is for another Johnnie Johnson, this time from Bomber Command. He's borderline notable, wartime Wing Commander with DFC and Bar, and commanded RAF forces during the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation, so perhaps we ought to consider moving this to Johnnie Johnson (RAF fighter pilot) or something? David Underdown (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A "DFC and Barer" should have a page without question. If Knights Cross holders are notable enough, then that is. Dapi89 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Bzuk, where Johnson is quoted writing about Malan, you seem to have chagned the page number from 245, to 275. Was that intentional? David Underdown (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, change it back, I can blame my fat fingers here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

Victory claims

The introduction speaks of 34 'confirmed victories', but there is no reference. Were these in reality the number of victory claims made by Johnson, rather than confirmed ones? There is no reference to the exact nature of his claims, so this would need to be supplied with a source. EDIT: It would appear that in the main body of text there is a source, Shores and Williams 1994, p. 358., speaking of victory claims (ie. not confirmed). The intro was edited accordingly, with this source added. Can someone verify? Kurfürst (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

All pilots total's are claims. But if you read the 1944-45 sections, you can see some of Johnson's kills were recorded on gun camera films. Dapi89 (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Concern over the ever-expanding article

The amount of text is approaching a small book. Isn't it about time to start pruning? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC).

• Salamu Alaykum. Don't mind. I hope we don't have to massacre it. No more if going into training, Tangmere wing sections. Squadron leader section will be kept short. Current Normandy-Germany one will stay as it is with minimal changes. Remainder post war stuff will be very brief. Dapi89 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The use of multiple quotes even though nearby text is sufficient and the images of a training aircraft, an aircraft type he shot down in numbers, and even a Spitfire are gratuitous "decorations". Consider their removal as part of the necessary pruning. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC).

• • • Gotta disagree with the comments about the images - I don't believe that images that are directly related to Johnson are "gratuitous "decorations" - can you quote Wiki guidelines which consider such images to be deserving of pruning? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Some examples of other Wiki articles about aerial "aces" with images: Douglas Bader: five images, "Sailor" Malan: three images, Erich Hartmann: three images, Marmaduke "Pat" Pattle: two images, David McCampbell: two images, George Beurling: six images, Gabby Gabreski: five images, Joseph C. McConnell: four images; Johnnie Johnson: five images (now). There are no definitive guidelines but there is a category for identifying articles with too many images, a decidedly subjective appraisal, but nonetheless, one that other editors have used. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

• So what it comes down to is a matter of taste rather than substance? Again, if the images used had no connection with Johnson, apart from being a photo of a Spitfire, for example, I would agree that they are probably excessive. Four images seems okay. As it is I am more concerned about the lack of information on the copyright of the 616 Sqn Spitfire VB, "Johnson climbs out of the cockpit of his Spitfire V..." which does need to be clarified. Cheers ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to a query about the exact nature of problems in expanding the article:

• Lede (Lead) sections typically are a precis with up to three paragraphs summarizing the salient points of the article;
• The use of quotations is typically restrained, with six-seven (previously 10) quotations; some are essentially repeating the statements made in the body of the article;
• Some of the incidents mentioned especially in a very large article, seem overly detailed or in at least one case, the This is Your Life episode, mainly trivial. Despite the tenor of these observations, the article is well-written, includes significant and interesting details and probably can be elevated to a GA or FA status. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC).