Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Whiteside McCay/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [1].

---

James Whiteside McCay

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/James Whiteside McCay/archive1

An article on an Australian politician and general of the Great war. If you ever wondered if there were any politicians present at Gallipoli, here is one. However his career as a general was marred by disasters, giving his biography a tragic tone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Current ref 58 (Honours...) lacks a publisher
    • Done.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - “Ester, who could speak seven languages, was also known as a brilliant mind.” Either remove this sentence, or clarify in which context The Argus calls her “a brilliant mind.” This sounds like the typical phrase a thirties newspaper would tuck in to a obituary.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Are you sure? I can't see any change. The Ministry (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Done again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it known why he destroyed his papers, and why he wanted a non-military funeral?

• No, it is not known. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What about adding a “Legacy” section to the end of the article?

• Sure. What should it say? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See, for example Samuel Adams. Obviously it won't be as long, but something along the same lines. The Ministry (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ministry (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Supported this well-written/cited/structured article in MilHist ACR and pretty well ready to support here as well, but first:

• He also served on a panel that deliberated on the future structure of the Army, was chairman of the Fair Profits Commission, the War Service Homes Scheme of the Repatriation Commission, and of its Disposals Board. This is a bit of a mouthful, and I'm not even sure I know exactly what it's saying, so before suggesting any rewording can I confirm it means that as well as chairman of the Fair Profits Commission he was:
  • Chairman of the Fair Profits Commission,
  • Chairman of the War Service Homes Scheme that was part of the Repatriation Commission, and
  • Chairman of the Disposals Board that was part of the Repatriation Commission?
    • Yes, that's right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, reworded to something that's a little longer but I think makes it clearer (might still be improved). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• In the References section, Charles Bean, Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918, Canberra, and Australian War Memorial don't need to be linked more than once. Also don't think they need retrieval dates like web pages, as they're simply online copies of published books. Also also, do we need McKay the author linked and hence bolded?
  • The point is that the references can then be lifted and re-used in other articles. If we prune the links, they cannot, and would need to be marked up again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I get that and often copy/paste these things myself but not too hard to then give it the once-over and tweak things. I'm not a MOS fanatic so no opposing on those grounds but if others complain, remember you heard it here first... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Just a nice-to-have, not a necessity, but any choice quote(boxes) or vaguely related images that can be inserted to break up the grey stuff from Western Front onwards?
  • I'll have a look. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Those help, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments. (Pending support)

call me old fashioned, but I always thought The Reverend should be capitalized (it's a title).

• Not the "the" unless it is the first word in a sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

His predecessor, Senator Anderson Dawson, had chaired a committee that had produced a detailed report that recommended the abolition of the post of General Officer Commanding Australian Military Forces and the creation of a Council of Defence, a Naval Board and a Military Board. Could you rewrite this so there are fewer thats? (perhaps none). His predecessor, x, had chaired a commitee producing a report recommending the abolition... The whole paragraph is chock full of "thats"

• Removed a few "thats". Hawkeye7 (talk)

(comment) his military career ran concurrently with his legal and political career?

• Yes, that's correct. The three are separated somewhat in the article for clarity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But the guy he replaced as Lt. colonel was sacked because he supported McCay!! That's taking the apolitical military to a new level!

• The guy was also a schoolteacher, so he had to front the Minister for Education... McCay again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

when you mention someone like Charles Bean, you might qualify him, saying, The Australian Journalist, Charles Bean, but not wikilinking Australian and Journalist.

• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally, very nice, though. I'd have liked a bit longer of the legacy section, but if the debate is just heating up, perhaps there isn't much on it yet.

• More like the coals being raked over. We need a military historian to look at it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But nice nice job. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments.

• Just nit-picking about "Allegiance" in the infobox. It's kind of unencyclopedic to ascribe his inner thoughts, attitudes to a flagicon, isn't it? I think you can't go beyond his citizenship and employment in the military.
  • It's the standard box. I presume it was debated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• I've removed a few chain links (the reader will click on "Ballynure" if anything at all, certainly not County Antrim or Ireland. The Ballynure article provides links to both of those more general articles anyway. "Dux" is a common term that English speakers are meant to know. WP isn't a dictionary. Can you do a thorough audit of the links to focus readers on the many valuable ones?
  • No, "dux" is a cultural reference. They don't have them in the US. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree because in the US, the term "valedictorian" is the norm YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• "barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria"—isn't this a very technical way of saying he was a barrister and solicitor? Some readers may think he actually worked for the Supreme Court. We don't need to introduce those hair-splittings here, do we?
  • They don't have them in the US either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• PLEASE don't link "Roman Catholic". How many billion humans are Catholic? It does not warrant a link. It's just not useful to the topic.

Tony (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think the article is comprehensive and well-written, else Tony would have opposed the prose I guess. Do you know what his major in his BA was? It said his MA was maths, was his BA about maths? As a MA is relatively high level, do we know what maths he did his project/focus on? Statistics? Applied maths? Hydrodynamic modelling? Pure maths? Number theory? There are some dash glitches that I'll just do myself for you YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wray recounts what he studied in first and second year of his BA but not the final year. It only states "Mathematics" for his MA. The biographer used McCay's academic transcript from the University of Melbourne. I could try contacting him. (The University charges thirty bucks.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support as above - the prose is crisp and clear (very military, what ho!) and nice to read. Comprehensive and covers controversy in a neutral and balanced manner. Any idea which type of cancer he succumbed to? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wray says "a cancer of the chest affecting the heart". To me, that means metastatic lung cancer. Official cause of death was renal failure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tricky, be nice to assume but better to err on the side of safety I guess. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support I fixed a typo and a few punctuation errors; one tiny fix still needed: is it Esther or Ester? Altogether this is in very good shape—a nice read, well sourced, and no style problems I can see. Maralia (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Esther. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.