Talk:Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] 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)

[edit] (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)

[edit] 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).