John McCain

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's already attained "good article" status, and I think it potentially could become a featured article. It receives a great deal of visitors, and will probably receive much more attention from the public in the coming year.

I think the text of the article is in pretty good shape, but a general review of the whole article would be appreciated. One particular issue that I would like to see addressed is the black-on-black image at the top of the article (and to the right). At my request, the Wikipedia Graphics Lab yesterday created an alternative image (at right) by changing the background color to a lighter color.[1] I believe that the Graphics Lab Image is a big improvement, at least until a better image is obtained. If the current black-on-black image is retained, will that affect our chances of getting the article featured?

Thanks, Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, saw the note on Elcobbola's page. The black background is really awful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some discussion of this at the article talk page. If this were an article about Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi then I might support the image of the black suit on black background. But it's not.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 20:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some retrieval dates being added to book cites ... such as "^ Hunt, Albert R. (2003). "John McCain and Russell Feingold", in Kennedy, Caroline (ed.): Profiles in Courage for Our Time. Hyperion, 249–268. ISBN 0786886781. 256: “The hero is indispensable to the McCain persona.” Retrieved May 10, 2008." This seems really superfluous. Books are books, they aren't going to disappear like stories on websites do. I presume this is being added because someone found the thing on Google Books, but that to me is irrelevant (pretend that you read the book in the library). Retrieval dates are a real eyesore in cites to begin with, as they clutter up the space, drive up file size and HTML size, and visually confuse with publication dates. I don't see any MoS requirement that retrieval dates be included in this case. I say, the fewer of them the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WTR, as you'll see in the Caroline Kennedy cite right now, there is indeed a link to Google Books. And that is what the retrieval date refers to. If there's no need for a retrieval date in this instance (I have no opinion one way or the other), then surely we can get rid of all the retrieval dates in the article. Why would they be needed in the other instances if not in this instance?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Retrieval dates for online versions of old printed sources, again. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And by the way, if you're eager to decrease load time, how about if we get rid of the cite templates? They're rigid, and unnecessary anyway. But, I will offer this concession: I will personally put every last one of the footnotes into those cursed cite templates that you like, provided we can get the top-photo matter resolved.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have already stated that I've withdrawn from the top-photo discussion. You can put any image you want up there without me saying anything. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding cite templates, please acknowledge as I do that there are reasonable arguments both for and against their use. The rule is that a big changeover is not done within an article unless active editors all agree to it. I want to keep using the cite templates in the bio subarticles. However, if you want to get rid of them in the main article, go ahead. You've made enough footnoting style changes here that we've already lost the ability to move cites back and forth unchanged between the main and subarticles. I'll then do a best effort when adding cites to the main article to match whatever presentation scheme you're using. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are people noticing a load time speedup now that the cite templates are gone? On "fresh" loads it seems just as slow to me as before. On some repeat loads soon thereafter, it seems noticeably faster. But I'm not doing controlled experiments, and I may just be seeing random fluctuations or other factors at play. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I haven't done an exact comparison, but have noticed the same things you have. I do acknowledge that there are reasonable arguments both for and against. To me, the reasons against are more compelling. Not just slightly faster load times, but also other factors. For example, there's less to type in order to create a footnote, plus less to learn in order to type a footnote. Additionally, there's more flexibility in footnote format, and the edit page reads more like the article. Anyway, thanks for agreeing to keep the templates in the sub-articles but not in the main article. If I add a footnote to a sub-article, I'll do my best to use a cite template.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that the article is very good overall but I have a few concerns. First is the infobox: it is way too large and looks awful. Second is the gap from 1970-1973 when McCain was not in solitary confinement: what was going on at this time and why was he removed from solitary confinement in 1970? Third is in the section entitled "First two terms in US Senate": what is the "native American agenda"? This should be explained more thoroughly. Fourth is Ross Perot: he was a good friend and now is an adversary, this should be noted somewhere. Lastly I think the section "Electoral history" should be combined in the article's body where appropriate.--Southern Texas (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just address the last part of this comment now. I'm not sure if you're suggesting entirely getting rid of the electoral history section, but in any event I think it's a legitimate section to have. This article is written in Summary Style, and this particular section summarizes the separate article Electoral history of John_McCain. Additionally, info from this section is already sprinkled elsewhere in the article already: "With the assistance of local political endorsements, his Washington connections, as well as money that his wife lent to his campaign,[59] McCain won a highly contested primary election.[58] He then easily won the general election in the heavily Republican district.[58]… He won re-election to the House easily in 1984.[58]… In his 1992 re-election bid, the Keating Five affair was not a major issue,[86][87] and he won handily, gaining 56 percent of the vote to defeat Democratic community and civil rights activist Claire Sargent and independent former Governor Evan Mecham…. McCain won re-election to a third senate term in November 1998, prevailing in a landslide over his Democratic opponent, environmental lawyer Ed Ranger.[94]" Is there any additional material that ought to be sprinkled in the rest of the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Thanks for your comments. The military service infobox part used to be separate, somehow it got moved up. Our infoboxes tend to accrete material; everybody has something they want to put in.
  • This is discussed at greater length in Early life and military career of John McCain. Short answer is, North Vietnamese policy towards the POWs changed in late 1969, for one of several reasons that historians still discuss, and McCain gradually spent more time with other prisoners, up to and including "Camp Unity", while still being one of the resisters within the POW population. I have a rewrite of the POW part of Early life and military career of John McCain in the offing.
  • "Native American agenda" is a good point; we shouldn't assume there was just one, and should describe more clearer what McCain was supporting.
  • Regarding Perot, the falling out was over POW/MIA issues (the source of 90% of all anti-McCain venom); United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs has some on this.
  • I agree, I never understood the rationale for this section. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WTR, do you think there's a good rationale for Electoral history of John McCain?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure ... I don't recall the arguments for it. But even if it's there, I don't think that there needs to be summary text in the main article for it. WP:SUMMARY is not a commandment for needless replication. Hillary Rodham Clinton has Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors and List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton subarticles, one with a one-sentence main article summary and one with no main article summary at all, just the link. Nobody's complained about either at the HRC FAC's, and it seems to me we could have the same kind of summary for this article here, with the current text description migrated into the main text or left to the bio subarticles as appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have a strong opinion either way. However, we have a section on medals and awards, and maybe you could make the same kind of arument to integrate it with the rest of the article, just like you could argue for merging the section on McCain's writings with the rest of the article. Is this (inadvertently) a can of worms? One advantage of having a separate electoral history section is that a reader looking for that info will quickly see it in the Table of Contents, and then will quickly see the link to the sub-article; if the section is eliminated then would a reader be able to navigate so easily?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The more I look at this, I would just pull Electoral history of John McCain back into the main article. If you put it into two-column mode, it won't take up much space at all. Then this whole issue goes away. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fine by me.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've done this. Now I remember one of the arguments for the separate article, so that all the other candidates could be added. I'm fine with including the major third parties, such as the Libertarians and Reform, but having total nobodies in here who got a few hundred votes is silly. Whether here or separate, this is about McCain's results, not a comprehensive article on the particular election involved. If someone wants that, they can add to Category:United States Senate elections in Arizona. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Looks good (speaking as one total nobody to another!).Ferrylodge (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • For the record, the discussion that led to the creation of the separate electoral history article was in Talk:John McCain/archive6#Details about electoral history. We kinda rode roughshod over that, although we can always undo what's been done. I feel the best answer to some of that discussion is to create more Senate election articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Agreed. Anyway, I guess I'll go ahead and juggle the images now.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, the article now includes the original black-on-black image in the "Cultural and Political Image" section, and also includes the cropped and colorized version at the top. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Remaining Image comments:
  • Image:McCainAndPetreaus.JPG: The explanation at this site is good enough for me to indicate support for the PG-Gov license. Note, however, that attorneys are wordsmiths and the choice of "public information" instead of "public domain" may be deliberate and important. Also, "information" may mean text, not images, and people providing/uploading images may not always adhere to that policy. Those may go a bit beyond the scope of necessary scrutiny at Wikipedia (as I said, I think the image is supported), so I articulate them only as issues that might be brought up in the future.
    • Thanks again for taking a careful look at the images in this article, Elcobbola. If I were an attorney (and I'm not admitting one way or the other!), I'd note that the Senate site you link does mention images and photos: "Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested" (emphasis added). So, I agree with you that we've done our necessary scrutiny. Good thing too, because if this image were off limits, then so would be a few other images in this and other articles. I suspect that the Senate used the term "public information" rather than "public domain" only because a normal non-lawyer would understand the former term better than the latter. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:McCain-ACU-ADA-scores.gif: I see the added source in the file history, but it didn't make it into the summary tag. I'll try to correct it, but double check to make sure it looks right. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of this threaded discussion is getting hard to read for me. I was wondering if someone with a bit more knowledge (Ferrylodge and WastedTime) could identify the remaining outstanding issues. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have to do the re-cite of the POW section, hope to complete this weekend. I'm also planning to trim some excess out of the 2008 presidential campaign section, and perhaps the 2000 one also. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a series of edits to those sections and the later Senate sections, mostly to take out off-topic material, reduce redundant citations (usually done by me originally), tense fixes, and whatnot. Nothing exciting or controversial as I see it, but if anyone objects to any of them, will discuss. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the POW re-citing now. May still tweak it in the future. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HailFire (talk · contribs)

I'm listing here some of my suggestions for improving this article. A few of these have already been touched on above, but I'm restating them to have all my initial inputs (numbered for easy reference) in one place:

• Reorganize and merge paragraphs with less than four lines for better flow, especially the first few sections where there are many stub paragraphs.
  • It's better to consider sentences instead of lines. Something that's four lines on one person's computer screen may be one line or eight lines on another person's computer screen. And I agree that it's important to avoid one-sentence paragraphs. I'll check to make sure we don't have any of those.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've done some rephrasing now, which I think solves this problem.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my first comment I used the word lines to mean less than four full sentences, regardless of how they are displayed. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Paragraphing. --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that we had some stubby paragraphs, but that seems to be fixed now. I looked at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Paragraphing, but do not see any requirement that a paragraph should have at least four sentences to be non-stubby.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Find ways to reduce infobox bloat.
  • Good point.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've now reduced the bloat by removing the infobox section on his military career, which is amply discussed in the text.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Infobox bloat on politician's articles is a general problem, not only here. I'd prefer less clutter, but that may be a minority view. --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• One portrait photo in the infobox is enough for readers, consider dropping the other two official portraits found elsewhere in the article.
  • Actually, the photo of McCain at the Naval Academy is an official portrait also. Presumably you're not suggesting that we remove it too. McCain has been around awhile, and his appearance has changed. He probably doesn't get a new portrait done unless he thinks the previous one has become outdated. So, I don't see a problem with having a few formal portraits in the article. Is there one that you found particularly annoying, and if so why?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're dropped one of the official photos, and replaced it with a screen grab from his official web site a few years ago (including images of pigs!). The remaining photos seem appropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The photo in the infobox is derivative of the one in the John McCain#Cultural and political image section. Consider finding an alternate, non-portrait photo for that section.
        • I kind of like this image of an image.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Scan entire article for emotional or fan-like phrasing; concentrate "maverick" and "independent" characterizations in "Cultural and political image" section near end of article and specify sources.
  • Do you see emotional or fan-like phrasing? Any examples? Regarding words like "maverick" and "independent", I think these can be validly used in various sections of the article, if it's objectively clear that he was bucking his party.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "maverick" label has been applied to McCain many, many times; the article could list a dozen cites for it at each placed it's used. And the label isn't "fan-like"; many people despise McCain for this very reason (listen to conservative talk radio if you don't believe me). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some examples: badly (seriously); hard-fought/brutal/grueling (difficult); stood up for people who were being bullied (spoke out against abuse of his classmates); almost killed/lost his life (narrowly escaped); battle/battles (contest); forces (opponents); vilified (criticized); attacked/pounded (challenged); panic (concern); dirtiest/brutal (contentious); infamously (falsely); took the steam out (countered); strong proponent (favored/supported); aroused furious (prompted); clinched (received); extravagant (high) --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The prose is supposed to be "engaging"! We aren't trying to squeeze the life out of our articles. And your alternate formulations often lose meaning. There's a big difference between "concern" and "panic", between "criticize" and "vilify", between "false" and "infamous". On the POW/MIA issue, McCain was accused of being a fraud, a traitor, and a Manchurian candidate (see House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000). That goes far beyond "criticism"! Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change writings section to paragraph format and include commentaries by book reviewers.
  • Since he's written quite a bit of stuff, maybe it would be best to just pick out the one or two writings that have been the best-selling, instead of following your recommended procedure for all of the writings.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biographical subarticles already include mentions of his two most important books, and there are articles on them — Faith of My Fathers and Worth the Fighting For — that can cover reviews and the like. The section in the main article is just intended as a reference list. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, as Ferrylodge wrote, not all the writings, only the most significant ones. With the addition of some related text, a book cover image can be justified. See this discussion for an example of how fair use concerns can be satisfied. --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Book covers got thrown out during the Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC. Faith of My Fathers is the only one that might qualify under the Audacity rules. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added the Faith of My Fathers book cover image.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge military honors with text about military service and change from list to prose.
  • If we have a detailed electoral history section, I'm not sure why we shouldn't have a detailed awards section. But I see below that you're also suggesting we get rid of the electoral history section. Please see my comment below about that.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reorganize congressional career sections with focus on official actions in leadership roles, including sponsored or co-sponsored legislation, and committee-related work; references to Keating Five and popular perceptions of subsequent reform initiatives might work better in the "Cultural and political image" section.
  • Right now, those sections are organized chronologically. Do you think that they skip or miss any significant actions in leadership roles? Any examples? Keating Five is part of the chronology, so I'm not sure it would be helpful to remove it from there.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keating Five is the major scandal of McCain's career. I already dislike that it lost its place in the table of contents. To move it out of the chronology would be disastrous. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say Keating Five is a minor element of McCain's work in the Senate, but a major element in the story of his political image-making and re-making. --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Part of this is a different interpretation of the section headings. This is a straight chronological narrative for the most part, with the section headings describing the most important thing going on at that time, but not the only thing. Thus, matters other than McCain's work in the Senate can be found under headings like "First two terms in U.S. Senate". That said, I still disagree with you: The wrongness of the Keating Five was the impression that regulators got when five senators suddenly descended upon them; the investigation of the Keating Five and their actions was carried out by the Senate Ethics Committee; was that committee's final report that (mostly) cleared McCain. It was all very much a Senate thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retitle "Political positions" section as "Political views" and change to prose style, reducing or eliminating vote rating details. Proposals on the Iraq War, ethics and campaign finance reform, climate change, immigration, and torture could be detailed here; avoid use of secondary web source, locate and cite the original sources instead.
  • This may or may not be a good move. Can you explain why you think details about particular issues shouldn't be left for the sub-article? We're trying to give the big picture here. Major legsilative proposals by McCain are covered in the chronological sections, and removing them from there might disrupt the flow. As far as the section title, I'm not sure I see why "Political views" is significantly different from "Political positions." Can you elaborate, please?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've reduced the vote rating details by getting rid of the paragraph about "voteview.com". In its place, we've added details about the two issues that voters are most concerned about: the economy and Iraq.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better, but consider cutting these biased characterizations out entirely. If such intellectual shortcuts are deemed essential (I'd say they are not), look for more objective non-partisan ratings, or if editors insist on including the partisan ones, cite reliable sources that discuss those surveys, not the surveys themselves. --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • By "biased characterizations", are you referring to the ACU and ADA ratings? If that's what you're referring to, then I disagree. We have this in a footnote: Mayer, William. "Kerry's Record Rings a Bell", Washington Post, (2004-03-28). Retrieved 2008-05-12: "The question of how to measure a senator's or representative's ideology is one that political scientists regularly need to answer. For more than 30 years, the standard method for gauging ideology has been to use the annual ratings of lawmakers' votes by various interest groups, notably the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the American Conservative Union (ACU)."
  • Way back when at the origin of these sections, we debated what to call them. "Political views" connotes what political figures think, while "Political positions" connotes what political figures say. Since the first is unknowable, we chose the second. The distinction isn't just academic; many politicians think one thing on abortion, for example, but have to take a different public stance due to requirements of party orthodoxy. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, these sections should discuss what politicians say, but why would anyone be interested in how politicians pose? I realize "Political positions" has support as a standard heading, but I think it sends these sections down the wrong path. The section is tricky, it can't read like campaign literature, but it is important to give the BLP subject's own political priorities prominence here, not lay out the red carpet for back-and-forth edits pushing an array of hot button issues that the BLP subject may not be so concerned about. Maybe "Policies and proposals" could work? --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to change this across all articles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections is probably the place to bring this up. Until then, I think we should stick with the general standard in use. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Limit campaign sections, especially any written in summary style, to material specifically about the contest: initial announcements, fundraising, speeches and advertising, major campaign themes and their evolution with events, election results.
  • Are you speaking particularly about the 2008 campaign, or do you feel that other sections are faulty in this regard?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment was a general observation. The campaign sections here are mostly contest-centered. Watch out for praise (oft-cited strengths, underdog) that read like campaign literature. Avoid citations in mid-sentence, put them at the end instead. If the cited source's are tightly related to the same topic, the reader can identify them by the title. This also imposes a discipline to use sources that are focused on the cited idea, and not just a minor element of the source. It's a style choice, but I have the impression that FA reviewers don't like mid-sentence inline citations because they disrupt the flow of the text and make it harder to read. --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my experience FAC reviewers don't like either mid-sentence cites or multiple end-sentence cites, because both disrupt brilliant prose. But there's nothing in the MoS against either, and BLP requirements dictate heavy, close citing for articles like these. You can't win. I've seen solutions talked about where footnotes would work like tooltips, so that the plain text is clean but hovering over any part would pop up the footnote/citation. We'll see if we ever get there. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Concentrate discussions about marriage and family in a new "Personal life" section, add something there about non-political interests and activities.
  • Not sure that's necessary. His two marriages are currently woven into the chronological narrative, and removing that stuff would disrupt the flow a bit. The approach of this particular article is to build a picture of the human being in a time-wise fashion, rather than breaking it up piecemeal. Nothing wrong with the latter approach, but is the latter approach really necessary? Odds and ends about his personal life, that didn't fit well into the chronological narrative, are in a couple sentences at the end of the section on "Cultural and Political Image." It seems odd that you'd want to segregate the personal stuff, whill urging complete integration of the electoral history, awards, and writings sections. If the latter three items should be integrated into the chronological sections, then why not the personal stuff too?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever read a real biography that segregated personal life material like that? In McCain's case, the personal/career/political are tightly intertwined. The Naval Academy led to his first marriage, his first marriage was affected by Vietnam and POW, his second marriage directly led to the viability of his new political career, his adoption of a daughter led to the worst smears of the 2000 presidential campaign, etc. To pull all this material out of chrono sequence would rob it of its narrative and causative power. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, a real biography is a book. But these articles should not try to copy that style. Personal life is not the major element of a political career, and not the reason political figures are notable (unless they are politically notable in part because of family relationships, or are hurt by a scandal related to personal life). In a "Personal life" section, readers learn something about the BLP subject's non-political life: family, home, finances, hobbies and habits, spiritual beliefs. That's just this reviewer's perspective. Your mileage may differ. --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it sure does differ. Try telling Hillary or Bill that "personal life is not the major element of a political career"! I guess we've been influenced by the articles we've worked on Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove electoral history section and incorporate appropriately weighted popular vote percentages in the article's text about those campaigns.
  • We used to have a separate article about electoral history, but recently folded it into this article. Are you saying that the detailed results should go back in a separate article? The main election results are already discussed in the chronological sections of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see it's been dropped. Better that way, I think. --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In footnotes, when citing McCain's own writings as a source, try to include "see also" referencing to alternate reliable sources.
  • Good point.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In those cases, we should just swap out the McCain writing for the other source. Most of these are in the POW section and I'll be taking care of them in the near future. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Barack Obama, I've encouraged using the book page self-reference plus an independent media source. Obama's books, especially his first one, have been fact checked by the media page-by-page in the last 18 months, making this reasonably easy to do, but in general, if you can include both kinds of references wherever the BLP subject's own writings provide useful insights, I think Wikipedia readers will appreciate it. --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Early life and military career of John McCain does this to a greater extent than the main article. But for the core POW narrative, I feel strongly that we're better off using the two standard works on POWs-in-Vietnam as much as possible, which is what my recent changes to both articles did. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If these suggestions prove useful to editors active in improving this article, I'll be back with more. As mentioned elsewhere, I'm hopeful that both major party nominees will have Wikipedia articles with featured article status. Unrelated to the article itself, but I'm curious: Why is this current peer review page titled as an archive? --HailFire (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea why it's titled as an archive. It appears that all of the other peer reviews have "archive" in the title too. Thanks for your other comments, some of which definitely have merit.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those other pages have "archive" in the title because (unlike this one) they are closed discussions and were renamed, adding the archive bit. --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then please show me an example of a peer review that doesn't have "archive" in the title.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge, thanks for your message inviting my follow-up comments. I hope some of what I've added here will be useful to you and the other editors who are improving this article. Thanks to all of you for your efforts, I know it's a lot of work. --HailFire (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hailfire.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted FA status, so I looked at the sources as I would have at FAC.

• ARGH! What makes this reliable? http://www.wargs.com/political/mccain.html (I've been a genealogist for years, this isn't close to being a reputable site!
  • Excellent! We need a genealogist here. I found a reliable source here that cites William Addams Reitwiesner of wargs.com, but presumably a reliable source citing an unreliable source is not going to be acceptable. So, I tracked down another source. The trivial little thing that we need to establish is that McCain's great-grandmother was born in England. Her name was Margaret Garside, later Margaret Garside Vaulx. I've found a pretty much reliable source for this: Roberts, Gary. "On the Ancestry, Royal Descent, and English and American Notable Kin of Senator John Sidney McCain IV", New England Historic Genealogical Society (2008-04-01). Only one problem: the title of the article is kind of screwy, in that it refers to "Senator John Sidney McCain IV". He's actually known as "John Sidney McCain III". But here's a twist: his great-grandfather John_S._McCain,_Sr. had a father named "John Sidney McCain". Which leaves me baffled.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NEHGR has some screwy naming conventions, but that's the article you want to cite. NEHGR is one of the "reliable" genealogical mags. Well, as reliable as genealogy gets. (Being a genealogist is a lot like inspecting sources for FAC, scarily enough). That website you cited before is only so-so on the whole reliablity scale. Recent NEHGR is much much much better, even if you have to explain that they have their own naming system (which is what I suspect you're getting on the name, they name people like royalty, give them numbers to help distinquish them, doesn't mean that they really think he goes by that name, just that they started with the earliest JSMcC and counted up.) Even better, it's by Boyd Roberts, he's an excellent genealogist with a very good reputation in the field. If all you want is that bit about the great-grandmother being born in England, you can cite the abstract, but might want to get the article somehow if you keep editing the wikipedia article. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've put NEHGR in the footnote, instead of wargs.com.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The additional John Sidney McCain above Slew is the source of a bemused mention on p. 18 of Faith of My Fathers. Why he didn't get a number or a Sr. is unknown. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Current ref 58 "Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons" is lackign a last access date.
  • Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 59 Nowicki, Dan and Muller, Bill "John MCCain Report..." has it's access date in ISO format,
  • Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 66 JohnMcCain.com is lacking publisher and last access date.
  • Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes http://www.nndb.com/people/914/000023845/ a reliable source?
  • It's not reliable.[3] So, we need to swap it out.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. NNDB was swapped out a while ago in the House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000. The perils of WP:SUMMARY. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Same for http://www.dadmag.com/archive/060400jmccain.php?
  • I'm having difficulty finding a reliable source to back up what McCain allegedly said (i.e. "I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those"). dadmag.com does not seem particularly reliable. The best I've come up with is: Alexander, Paul. "The Rolling Stone Interview: John McCain", Rolling Stone (2001-09-27): "you know, that’s really the ugly underside of politics".Ferrylodge (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see nothing unreliable about this source. It's an interview with McCain, that touches upon how his political career affects his personal life and whatnot, and appeared in a publication appropriate to the topic. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really run across this publication, that's all. Is it reasonably well known or is it the equivlent of a mimeographed newsletter? If it's reasonably well known, it's reliable for an interview, we just want to make sure it's not some fly by night outfit out to smear McCain with a false interview. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their site, they're not major, but they're not mimeograph-level either. And if you read the interview, it's clear that it's a friendly interview, not out to smear, and the answers "ring true" to McCain's personality. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works then. Just nice to have it on "paper" here to refer folks if they question things. Being a mom, I've never had to read Dadmag.com (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise http://www.4president.org/speeches/2008/mccain2008announcement.htm?
  • Swapped for a reliable usatoday source.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 178 "Sidoti, Liz "Romney Suspends Presidential Campaign..." is lacking a publisher
  • Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 194 "Washington Post-ABC News Poll" 14 Paril 2008" is lacking publisher
  • Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm a reliable source?
  • Regarding OnTheIssues, they don't seem extremely reliable, but not unreliable either. Please check out their Wikipedia article and see what you think.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally okay with it, but would probably be more comfy with it (eew.. comfy with a political website! Eeewww..) if it was used by mainstream publications. Or is there a page that shows how they get the candidates positions? I'm not sure they are unreliable, just figure that with a political figure, you want to figure out all the ways folks can object before you get to FAC. You'll get enough "Oppose, unstable" comments as it is... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're leaning a bit too heavily on Ontheissues ... Ferrylodge's idea is that we can only describe positions that Ontheissues carries, which could easily earn the response "who died and made them king?" But that said, the "Political positions" section is thorny and attracts extra attention at FAC no matter how you do it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OnTheIssues seems to be reputable, and is cited in a lot of books.[4] I wasn't the one who introduced OnTheIssues into the McCain article, and they were cited for a bunch of McCain's issue positions before I joined in the frenzy. I do think it would be helpful to deal with issue positions as a closed set of items (so we don't get endless battles when people want to insert additional issue positions into the main McCain article), and sticking to OnTheIssues would accomplish that. However, there are other ways. For example, McCain filled out a questionnaire in 2004 for Project Vote Smart, and we could simply summarize those responses instead of using OnTheIssues. Alternatively, we could simply select the finite number of issue headings that McCain himself has selected at his web site, but there may be neutrality issues with that.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)In place of the last paragraph of the "political positions" section, how about something like this:

McCain is a former board member of Project Vote Smart (PVS) which was set up by Richard Kimball, his 1986 Senate opponent.[1] PVS provides neutral and non-partisan information to voters online about the political positions of McCain,[2] and of other candidates for political office. Additional information about McCain's issue positions can be found at his 2008 campaign web site.[3]

[1] Kimball, Richard. "Program History", Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-05-20. Also see Nintzel, Jim. "Test Study: Why are politicians like John McCain suddenly so afraid of Project Vote Smart?", Tucson Weekly (2008-04-17). Retrieved 2008-05-21.

[2]"Senator John Sidney McCain III (AZ)", Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-05-20. Non-partisan information about McCain's issue positions is also provided online by On the Issues. See "John McCain on the Issues", OnTheIssues. Retrieved 2008-05-18.

[3]"Issues", johnmccain.com. Retrieved 2008-05-20.

I went ahead and did this.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your links from Our Campaigns (current refs 244 through 254) the first four deadlinked for me. I didn't check any others.
  • Seems to be working okay now. Here's the link in footnote 244. I've never had a problem with these pages, but maybe their site went down for a little while today.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. "Collaborative website for politics"? do they mean like ... say... Wikipedia? If there is no editorial oversight.... Is this a reliable source? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OurCampaigns.com has been cited by Wikipedia a lot, but I don't know which of those hits are featured articles (if any). The OurCampaigns website does have some quality control: "If it becomes clear that a particular user continues to enter unofficial returns when the official returns are available, that user's access to enter additional totals may be removed." It appears that one of the main characters at OurCampaigns is also a Wikipedian, namely Chronicler3, and he says: "OC is the premier Internet source for historic election returns and information." The info at that site doesn't seem to be available online anywhere else.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One way to make this question go away would be to split the electoral history info into a separate article (which it used to be), and then just list it in the "see also" section of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is just as reliable or not in a separate article as it is here. This is distorting the article's content just to pass FAC, doesn't seem like a wise approach. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTR, do you believe OurCampaigns is a RS?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for every election posted at OC. Each page has a source field, though some users forget to fill it in. Also the earliest pages at OC were created before the source field was created. I certainly would be willing to discuss anything I have posted either here or there. Chronicler3 (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't going to make me go to the library, are you?  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concede. Out it goes, again. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take it out and create the separate article. You did do a very nice job formatting the columns. We will remember it.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I put a "seealso" in the main McCain article.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check prose. I didn't check how each source is used in any great depth. I didn't check links. Given the number of sources, I can't promise that I wouldn't find more fiddly little things when the article comes to FAC. 19:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! We'll get right on it. Ferrylodge (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've addressed all your comments. Thanks again.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of OurCampaigns

Since this issue was raised above, I thought that an explanation would be in order. As you know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic website. Wikipedia does not replace leading websites on anatomy or astronomy or calculus - its role is to provide general information on a given topic using terminology that the general reader can understand.

OurCampaigns is a psephological website. Its entries often use phrases not in common use (terms such as "the General Ticket," "the short ballot," "the Australian ballot," or "Anti-Snapper delegates") but which people who research elections know about. Every race page at OC has a source field, and many additional sources are referenced in the race description field. The earliest pages at the site were created before the source field was created (which I believe was in 2004), so these fields were originally blank. However, as each page is revisited and refined, users have been adding the sources and correcting errors. This is similar to Wikipedia, with the chief difference being that OC restricts who can make certain types of changes to protect what has been entered. One of our users several years ago entered some bad information; after he was banned from the site, we have tried to identify and correct these problems.

I see the two websites working together symbiotically. OC is the website for the specifics: e.g., the stats of all U.S. House races for 1930. I see Wikipedia as the summary of the stats: party X gained so many seats. Why should Wiki post all the U.S. House races of a given year? It is not needed. Someone needing that data would not likely come to Wiki to find it. Many Wiki writers have used OC data in pages here - mostly with attribution but not always. In terms of the quality of information, all I can say is that users at OC specialize in election history and work to make the coverage more complete, more descriptive, and more accurate. It is not an amateur's paradise. Chronicler3 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chronicler3, thanks for stopping by. I guess from a general Wikipedia standpoint, the more stuff that OurCampaigns puts in the source fields the better.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge - that comment had a tinge of sarcasm that I believe was not warranted. Some Wiki writers copy information from OC without attribution such as parts of this article, which I don't mind because at least good information was used. In other cases such as this article, no footnote was given for an event (the Federalist caucus in this case) because the primary sources disagree with Wikipedia's account. I suppose no footnote is needed for bad information. Chronicler3 (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mean to be sarcastic at all. I think OurCampaigns is a fantastic resource, and you all have done an incredibly great job putting it together. It just seems that if the verifiability is improved, then OurCampaigns will become an even more acceptable Wikipedia source.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]