Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. McCain, Jr.

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Closed as Promoted - Cam (Chat) 06:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John S. McCain, Jr. edit

An article about someone with a long, diverse, and important military career, and also someone who is part of a multi-generational American military-political family. Hope eventually to get to FA alongside Early life and military career of John McCain, but first would very much like MILHIST A-Class status. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just a few points that stick out:

  • An endash (–) is required between date ranges used in the article and page ranges used in citations.
    • Done. (Almost all of the page ranges had ndashes, but I had missed one. Also added in a few other places.) Wasted Time R (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References/citations are required in the "Namesakes" section. Also, is the mention of his grandson attending the Naval Academy really appropiate in this section?
    • Done on cites. I think it's appropriate because it shows the extension of the family tradition, especially since JSM IV got JSM Jr.'s family name of "Jack". Most other authors discussing Jr. and the family mention IV, so we are following established practice. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that he should get a mention somewhere, but the positioning in "Namesakes" seems totally out of place and quite random. Well, we'll see if anyone else minds. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References/citations are required on all medals and decorations in the "Awards" section.
    • This is a little tricky. All of the major medals that he earned by doing something special are indeed cited from various sources. But I've never found a complete listing of JSM Jr.'s medals (unlike JSM III, whose medal list was released earlier this year during the campaign). The rest listed here are theater medals and service medals that we can be sure he would have been awarded, simply because he was in the conflict or theater or service involved. If we yank these for lack of citation, other editors will eventually put them back in (just as they got here in the first place). Does MILHIST have a standard policy on these? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was a discusson some time ago about whether pictures of ribbons should be included in articles at all; the result was quite split. However, if you wish to get this article through FAC then they will need to be referenced. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the "See also" section with just a link to the US Navy portal really necessary?
    • It was done like this in Early life and military career of John McCain, which made FA. I don't have strong feelings on this, except that if it goes in the References section it usually squeezes the cite columns, which is not good. But I've added an entry to the section (per what FA George B. McClellan does), so that it doesn't look bare. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would actually advise removing the section as it does not add to the value of the article nor enhance one's knowledge of McCain whatsoever. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've looked at other bio articles on admirals; some include the Navy portal and some don't, but of those that do, it's via a "See also" section with some kind of list or other entry in it (e.g. James Stockdale, Chester W. Nimitz). Wasted Time R (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider re-alligning a few of the images to the left to allow a more ballanced, visually appealing article.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments! Wasted Time R (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference #2, [1], gives John McCain (likely) as the author. What evidence is there that he is the author? With no verifiable authorship, it seems best to leave the author field empty. — ERcheck (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I felt it important to try to identify the author, because it starts out in unorthodox fashion (for what one would initially presume to be a Navy historian), then goes into first person, then on page 5 and 6 starts saying "Dad" and "my Father". So it has to be one of the three children, and Sandy seems very unlikely. John would be the obvious choice, except that in the acknowledgements to Faith of My Fathers, John says Joe is the keeper of family records and legends, so perhaps it could be him. Another possibility is Mark Salter, the actual writer behind much of John's books and speeches, but it doesn't quite have his voice. In any case, it's certainly important to inform our readers that this was written by a McCain family member. Thanks for your comment, and for the copyediting work you've done on the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps worth writing to the Webmaster of the site and asking for confirmation on author. — ERcheck (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good idea. I've sent off a mail, we'll see if I get a response. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Just a few issues; I'd appreciate if they were resolved.
  • Please merge the one sentence paragraph at the end of the Early Years section with another paragraph. It is also a bit of a non-sequitar, perhaps worth moving to a different part of the article.
  • Done – I moved it to start the first paragraph in the WWII section. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out all acronyms the first time they appear. I noticed this with JANAC, check for others. Also HYPO, it could be explained for the benefit of those who don't have navigation popups and don't want to open a new tab.
  • Done – I changed those two to replace the acronyms, since they aren't used again. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use {{convert}} for all measurements. I've fixed one for you, but there are probably others I didn't notice.
  • I added several usages of {{convert}} in the WWII section. I didn't convert the 'tons' figures for Japanese ships, because the template explicitly uses 'short tons' (not a term usually used in naval writing), results in double parens, and because looking at other articles, it seems we generally still use 'tons' even for European ships. But if I'm wrong I'll change this too. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works, I've seen it that way in other articles as well. – Joe Nutter 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe Nutter 02:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good now. – Joe Nutter 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved image issues from Woody
{{{2}}}
  • Support now all my image issues have been resolved. I think the prose is acceptable for A-Class though I strongly recommend an outside copyeditor before attempting FAC. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Woody above and the severe need for a copy-edit. I'll give you a few random shots, in no real order:
  • "The strong recommendation of Ellsworth Bunker, now U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam, was key in Johnson's decision.[3] "
    • Now?!?
      • He has a different position since the last time we mentioned him in the article. I've seen this use of 'now' in narratives, but I've changed it to 'who had since become'. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He ordered the Naval Court of Inquiry that followed the June 1967 USS Liberty incident.[48]"
    • Ordered? You mean headed? Or commanded? 'Took the lead role'?
      • He ordered the convening of the court, which I've since clarified the wording to. Why is this worth mentioning at all? Because Liberty theorists often mention it, as part of some grand unified conspiracy theory with JSM III's supposed betrayals in Vietnam. I thought that not mentioning it at all would add fuel to these types' fires. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beginning in 1965, Senate Minority Leader Dirksen had been championing McCain's case for four star admiral promotion to President Lyndon Johnson.[29] McCain had both supporters and detractors within the Navy, but the top commanders had sidetracked him with the U.N. appointment, and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had been given the impression that McCain was not a strong commander.[29] Johnson owed Dirksen for having broken the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and so in 1966, Johnson requested that McNamara find a four-star path for McCain.[29]"
    • So it was one big conspiracy...?
      • No, of course not. All top-level military promotions involve some amount of politics and politicking, just as they do at the top levels of civilian bureaucracies and corporations. I'm simply trying to show here what McCain's connections were and how he finally got his four-star promotion. It doesn't mean McCain was unqualified; he clearly was, but for some reason or another had accumulated some detractors within the Navy and/or Pentagon, and this is how he managed to achieve his goals despite those detractors. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • McCain was known for his short and thin stature,[5] salty character,[40][41] and trademark cigar.[41] One superior wrote that: "There is only one Jack McCain! Vice Admiral McCain, by his enthusiasm, honesty and delightful personality makes many friends, not only officially but socially.... The 'little man with the big cigar' is known to everyone."[6] McCain liked to confer with enlisted men and get their opinions.[5] He swore so much he earned the sobriquet "Good Goddamn McCain"; his regular greeting to begin the day was "Good goddamn morning."[3] He was often asked how he told his wife Roberta and her identical twin sister Rowena apart, to which he famously responded by puffing his cigar, flashing a grin, and saying, "That's their problem."[1] He had developed a problem with alcoholism during his career, and had cut back on his drinking so that it did not interfere with his ability to command or show up on fitness reports, although he occasionally suffered lapses.[3][6]"
    • Where does this come from? You are in 1965, talking about his three posts at one time...then this.
      • This paragraph covers his general character, appearance, relevant personal habits, and the like. I had to stick it in somewhere, and this seemed the best place, before his career elevates to the next level. I've added the transitory phrase "Throughout much of his career, ..." to indicate this material is covering more than just this moment in his career chronology. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCain himself was suspended five days for leaving ship without permission.[6]"
    • McCain himself?
      • One was a stylism, one seems a mistake, both now gone. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, McCain would not see his family for long stretches.[1]"
    • ...no offense, but who cares? Say that he was deployed for long periods...it's more encyclopedic, and keeps in tone with the rest of the section.
      • To illustrate the nature of Navy life, and the effect it would have on his children, especially JSM III. While MILHIST readers take these things for granted, this article gets some general readership off the links from John McCain, and I'm trying to write for that audience too. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Hooven-Owens-Rentschler (H.O.R.) diesels (known as "whores") which powered Gunnel were troublesome; at one point en route home, drive gears of all four of the main engines were out of commission, and McCain had to rely on his tiny auxiliary engine for the last 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km)"
    • is the "whores" part necessary?
    • is "en route" needed?
    • "McCain had to rely on his tiny auxiliary engine" - the entire crew did, too. Not just McCain.
      • I've rephrased to remove the "en route", and to attribute the third point to the whole crew. I think the "whores" should be kept, however; per FA criteria, our prose should be "engaging", and that word is. More importantly, one good thing about this section (whose writing predates my involvement in the article) is that it conveys the many frustrations of WWII American submarine operations. It also helps defray the website criticism one sometimes sees that McCain's accomplishments as submarine commander weren't very impressive. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other things like this too. Please find a copy-editor to help you out with these... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for all your comments, and more are welcome if possible. I'm working on another copyedit run on the article today. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now made a substantial copyediting pass through the article, marking up a printout on a train to try and get a reader's perspective on it. Hopefully I fixed up some of the problems you had in mind. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was very good work. Full Support with only one comment: can we get a stub on William Alexander McCain? Thanks and great work, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! I've thought of trying to do something on that McCain, but would have to find some good sources. There are currently a couple of sentences on him in John S. McCain, Sr.#Family heritage, second paragraph. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Linked to that and created a redirect. At least it is something. Thanks for your help! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/John_S._McCain,_Jr.&oldid=1138360377"