Talk:John Andrew Barnes III/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I will review this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Content/Style

• In the lead: his rank should be lower case since it is not being used as part of a title. E.g. "Captain Johns" requires upper case, but "Johns was a captain" does not.
• In the lead: "...a tour of duty in Vietnam..."; suggest "completed a tour of duty in Vietnam" and link tour of duty
• Infobox: The Bronze Star could go in the infobox.
• Do we know anything about his birth parents and why they adopted him out? What did his adoptive parents do?
• "Barnes expressed an interest in joining the Army." On the face of it, this seems inconsistent with the following paragraph where he wants to join the Marines.
• Some detail is excessive; e.g. streets/numbers.
• The town names should be pipelinked such that Massachusetts isn't visible as a link. For the first one, suggest: "...born in Boston in the state of Massachussets,..."
• Suggest moving mention on the specific high school he attended to where you first mention a school.
• Link "Civil Air Patrol".
• What unit did he serve with in Santa Domingo, and what were his duties?
• Although his rank is mentioned in lead/infobox, it doesn't say this in the article body.
• I appreciate that the sources may be light of what he did during his first tour, but could this be expanded by referring to the movements of his unit? For example, "His company was initially stationed..."
• "back in the fall of 1967"; for non-Americans, it may be better to state the month instead rather than "fall".
• "His mother was very upset that he volunteered to go back.": This is better worded as, "According to Barnes' sister, his mother was very upset that he volunteered to go back."
• The lead specifically mentions the Battle of Dak To, but the body of the article doesn't.
• Is there a source that mentions the retrieval of his body?
• "...the Vice President's executive office": presumably this is in Washington?
• "...and several other medals for valor." Too vague. Medals for valor are pretty big deal so the reader will want to know what are these medals? I suspect that they may be service medals.
• "The final sentence of the first paragraph of the Legacy section seems particularly emotive and potentially non-encylopaedic.
• It seems excessive detail to name the individuals involved in the Blue Ribbon Commission. If it is supported by the source, perhaps just refer to prominent businessmen or town officials.

Structure

• Suggest "Military career" as the heading rather than "Army". The second/third paragraphs could be under a subheading "Vietnam War"

Sources

• Some of the sources used may not be sufficiently reliable. For example, "John Andrew Barnes III" looks to be a high school project. Maybe it could be used in the context of providing opinions of his sister e.g. "according to his sister, Barnes..." but I see the Dedham Times had an interview with the sister as well, it may be better from a credibility point of view to use that exclusively if possible for information coming from the sister. Sources [8] and [9} don't seem to be reliable and look to be amateur sites with no editorial oversight.
• Reflections - the citation here is to a 144 page document; can a specific page(s) be cited?
• Citation [4]: this is to an article titled "Dedham Soldier Receives Posthumous Medal of Honor". The title suggests that it is referring to a current event, i.e. the announcement of the MoH in around 1969 but the date is for 2017
• Where there are more than one citation, put them in numerical order. Eg, the citation for his graduation is currently [1],[6],[3], should be [1],[3],[6]
• There appear to be a few places where citations can be consolidated, for example, the final two sentences of the Army section are cited to the same two sources. The cites on the first sentence can be deleted since those on the second sentence apply to the first as well.
• The article of the battle has some online resources, have you looked at these to see if they could be used to expand on the MoH action here?

That is my initial comments done, I may have some more once you have dealt with the above. I will place this on hold in the meantime, Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Response

@Zawed: Thank you very much. This is very helpful. Where I was able to make an edit, I did. Where I wasn't, or where there is more to say, my comments are below.

• Do we know anything about his birth parents and why they adopted him out? What did his adoptive parents do?

I can't find anything about his birth parents at all, nor about the occupations of his adoptive parents. Even obituaries don't offer details.

• "Barnes expressed an interest in joining the Army." On the face of it, this seems inconsistent with the following paragraph where he wants to join the Marines.

Perhaps, but that is what the sources say. He was in high school. Chalk it up to that, I guess.

• What unit did he serve with in Santa Domingo, and what were his duties?

I can't find any additional details about his service here.

• "back in the fall of 1967"; for non-Americans, it may be better to state the month instead rather than "fall".

The sources don't get any more specific than the season.

Actually, in hindsight I was probably remiss in raising this so just as well you didn't change it. The article is on an American subject, so I think the American usage, i.e. fall is acceptable here. Zawed (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a source that mentions the retrieval of his body?

Not that I have found.

• "...and several other medals for valor." Too vague. Medals for valor are pretty big deal so the reader will want to know what are these medals? I suspect that they may be service medals.

The source does not get more specific, and I couldn't find anything else that listed all his medals, so I removed "for valor."

• "The final sentence of the first paragraph of the Legacy section seems particularly emotive and potentially non-encylopaedic.

I respectfully disagree. I think the impact his death had on his family is notable.

I still think the sentence potentially non-encylopaedic. I suggest rephrasing. How about something like: "Carson Barnes Fleming believed that the distress of the loss of Barnes contributed to the deaths of her parents in the years that followed." Zawed (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

That woks for me. Change has been made. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Some of the sources used may not be sufficiently reliable. For example, "John Andrew Barnes III" looks to be a high school project. Maybe it could be used in the context of providing opinions of his sister e.g. "according to his sister, Barnes..." but I see the Dedham Times had an interview with the sister as well, it may be better from a credibility point of view to use that exclusively if possible for information coming from the sister. Sources [8] and [9} don't seem to be reliable and look to be amateur sites with no editorial oversight.

I believe it was a high school project, but there are only two statements that have it as the exclusive citation: that he expressed an interest in joining the army as a child and that the street sign from his childhood home now indicates he lived there. Given the non-contentious nature of those claims, I believe this is an acceptable source. Parr is a published author and about as much of an expert on the history of Dedham as one can expect to find. Given this, I believe the source is acceptable per WP:BLOGS.

• Citation [4]: this is to an article titled "Dedham Soldier Receives Posthumous Medal of Honor". The title suggests that it is referring to a current event, i.e. the announcement of the MoH in around 1969 but the date is for 2017

The date is accurate. The Dedham Times did not exist in the 60s or 70s. Sometimes they publish articles about the history of the town, however. This article was published 50 years to the month after his death.

So the title is accurate? It just seems to odd to use current tense for a past event. Zawed (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is accurate, odd as it may be. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• There appear to be a few places where citations can be consolidated, for example, the final two sentences of the Army section are cited to the same two sources. The cites on the first sentence can be deleted since those on the second sentence apply to the first as well.

I disagree with this approach. Future editors may not know that the single source is intended to encompass both sentences. Also, if a sentence is ever place in between them, the text-source WP:INTEGRITY will be broken.

I maintain my view here. At Wikipedia:Citation overkill under "Needless repetition", it says "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." So from this it is perfectly acceptable to have a single source covering multiple (continuous) sentences, and even a paragraph. It is up to the editor adding any new sentences to ensure integrity. Zawed (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be, as it says in WP:INTEGRITY, a "matter of editorial judgment." I believe it is better to overcite than undercite as we can't be sure what any future editor may do. Personally, if I am adding a new sentence into a paragraph, and I don't have access to a source already existing, I'm not going to start adding footnotes where I'm not sure they truly belong. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree. I appreciate your diligence in only adding sourced information but most editors don't take the same approach and WP:INTEGRITY is always going to be broken if an uncited sentence is added between two cited ones. That said, I'm not going to die in a ditch over this issue and am happy to pass this as a GA as I believe it meets the necessary criteria. Good work, and I hope to see you bring more MoH biographies here. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• The article of the battle has some online resources, have you looked at these to see if they could be used to expand on the MoH action here?

I don't have access to the sources, but I have read the article. I don't find anything that would be relevant here. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. I do appreciate it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries, your changes look good. I have responded to a few points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made a few changes and responded elsewhere. Are we good to go now? Thanks, @Zawed:! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Passing as GA. Zawed (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed