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.

---

Close as consensus to promote Woody (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've put nearly 300 edits into it over 16 months and after a successful GA review, a bit of copy-editing and a recent peer review, I think it's ready. I would like tot take this to FAC if possible, so I'd appreciate detailed commentary. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Mike Jackson. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - sorry for the seven days with virtually no comments, we're normally better than this. I only have a minor quibble: "and one of its most high-profile generals since the Second World War" may be a tad controversial, could you cite a source? I don't doubt the claim, I just think it could use a source. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's sourced right at the bottom, which is why I didn't cite it in the lead. It's currently ref #32, the second to last under the "Chief of the General Staff" heading. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw that, but FAC may want you to add another ref in the lead. Not a big deal to me, though. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comments: not much to say as this article looks quite good to me. I have a few comments:
  • CorenSearchBot reveals no copyright violations: [1] (no action required);
    • Unsurprising, but reassuring nonetheless.
  • no dabs, ext links work according to the tools, alt text is present (no action required);
    • Ditto
  • the abbreviation "BNP" should be formally introduced. For instance, just add "British National Party (BNP)" upon first mention;
    • Done
  • the abbreviation "MoD" should be introduced on first mention. Currently it is listed in the High command section, but the term "Ministry of Defence" is used earlier in the previous section;
    • I believe it is, at least before the first time it's abbreviated to MoD; should I introduce the abbreviation the first time I mention the institution?
      • Yes, sorry I didn't explain that well. What I mean is that I think you should have "Ministry of Defence (MoD)" on first mention of the institution. In this case, I think that would be in the lead. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem. Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused by the headings. You have "Military career" and then "High command". Given that the "High command" section is still part of his military career it seems counter intuitive. I suggest renaming "Military career" to "Early military career" or something similar;
    • Done.
  • in the References section, most of the Specific citations end in full stops, but a couple do not. For instance # 3, #11, and # 19. For consistency, I suggest adding full stops to these citations. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also done—those are the only three not to use templates. Thanks for your review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments This is a very nicely written and comprehensive article, but I've got some concerns about some of it's wording:
  • What's meant by "He was present as the battalion's adjutant during the events of Bloody Sunday"? - the use of "he was present" implies that he played a role in these events, in which case what he did (rather than just his position) should be specified (particularly given that the article says that he apologised for the events - did he do /not do something that warranted an apology?).
    • He was there, and involved in the same operation, but he didn't fire a shot.
      • Do we know what he did? (eg, was he in the battalion HQ, with the troops that fired on the protesters or elsewhere). Given that he apologised after retiring, it would be good to know what his role in the affair was. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added more detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was seconded to a staff position at the Ministry of Defence in 1982 during the Falklands War, and thus missed the opportunity to serve in the conflict directly" - what's the relevance of mentioning 'missing out' on the Falklands War here? - rotations to staff positions are a standard part of military officers' careers. Did he play any part in the war (which only involved a smallish part of the Army) in his staff position?
    • This relates to your last point, so I'll explain it down there
  • "He took command of 1 PARA in March 1984 and held the command until September 1986, during which time he undertook winter training in Norway" - was it just him, or the whole battalion who went to Norway? (senior officers do sometimes deploy individually or with their staff for map-based exercises)
    • I'll have to check the source... Added, after consulting his book
      • "who, at the time, were on NATO exercises in Norway, training for the possibility of a Soviet attack" reads strangely - this implies that the battalion was stationed in Norway, which I don't believe was the case. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reworded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Jackson think that he wasn't going to be promoted beyond colonel? (particularly as he only held this rank for two years before being promoted)
    • Had to consult his book again, but added
  • "a post he held until 1992, thus missing the Gulf War" - what's the purpose of this? He was serving an important operational deployment to Northern Ireland at the time, and the article doesn't say that he 'missed a deployment to Northern Ireland' everytime he was posted elsewhere. As a light infantry specialist, he probably wouldn't have been sent to the Gulf anyway as Britain's contribution was an armoured division.
    • See response to your last point
  • "a blue beret, signifying UN allegiance." - I don't think that 'allegiance' is appropriate here - my understanding is that blue berets are issued to indicate that the soldier is taking part in a UN deployment, not that they answer solely to the UN chain of command.
    • Changed to command, but open to suggestions
  • "He spent nearly 45 years in the army but never fought in a conventional battle" - that seems an unnecessary qualification for someone who served successfully in Northern Ireland during The troubles as well as the very tense and complex deployments to the Balkans and held the most senior position in the British Army during the Iraq War. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • His only two chances for "conventional" combat were the Falklands (where a large part of the Parachute Regiment served) and the Gulf and his one regret (according to interviews and his autobiography) in 45 years of soldiering is that he didn't participate in a conventional battle, hence the mentioning of the two conflicts. That's why they're mentioned and I'll add something on that to the retirement sectionAdded. 09:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC). Thanks a lot for the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that makes sense. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support my comments have now been addressed. Great work with this article! Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and for your support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:36, 26 March 2011 (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.