Wikipedia:Peer review/Joseph McCarthy/archive2
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has grown a lot since it was given GA status, and seems very strong. What, if anything? separates this from being Featured? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a most impressive article. I would however draw its editors' attention to a few points:
- Lead: two "froms" in second line reads awkwardly. Also, although you clarify in the main body, I think it should say here that McCarthy defeated La Follette in the Republican primary, not in the senatorial election.
- Early life: "McCarthy's judicial career was initially a controversial one". In what sense? You don't give any backing for this statement.
- Military Service:
- Comma after Bougainville (now fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC))
- "in his future political career". Since you haven't previously established that he intended one, I'd say this should be "in a future...."
- "He would leave..." Why not "He left..."?
- "..lied about.." Hmmm - I'm sure he did, but the wording sounds a trifle partisan for a neutral article. I would prefer a blander construction, e.g. "..he fabricated aspects of..."
- "He resigned his commission in April 1945, five months before the end of the Pacific war". I'm intrigued that he was allowed to do this for apparently personal reasons. Or were there other circumstances?
- It sounds as though the members of the communist controlled UERMW-CIO had votes in the Republican primary! I don't know how these things work, but I'd have thought they would have simply voted for the Democrat to get rid of La Follette.
- US Senate: "...for which he would be widely criticized..." By whom, & when?
- Tydings:
- An ellipsis needs fixing near the end of section (I'll try and remember to do this myself)
- Where did Jenner state that Tydings was guilty of a whitewash?
- Fame and notoriety:
- Not necessary to redescribe who Tydings was
- Later - the words "But still" are inappropriate. Just say:"McCarthy was now credited..."
- Were there legal consequences from the Pearson assault?
- McCarthy & Truman: There should be no "who" after Marshall, otherwise the sentence is ungrammatical
- Permanent sub-committee: "..engineers even committed suicide". The even is inappropriate, sounds a bit "wow!" and breathless.
- Investigating the Army: "...reportedly changed his story.." - reported by whom?
- Public opinion: The table sits oddly in the article, particularly with no commentary attached. I think a brief commentary should be here, in the body of the article, and the table included at the end - would you consider?
- Censure:
- Use of ellipses in 2nd count is inconsistent with earlier [...] usage
- The final sentence of the section suggests a footnote should be added.
- Ongoing debate: "..a controversial right-wing author" is opinion, uncited.
- HUAC: Does this point really need a section of its own? It's footnote material.
- Popular culture: Does this really enhance the article? My feeling is that it doesn't. (And, with more than 8,000 words, a bit of slimming wouldn't harm)
Congratulations, however, on a very thorough and readable account. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Good lord, I just read this article in entirety and it's very well done! Very impressive, and excellently written. I hope to see it at FA, and will support it heartily.
I have some questions, and points.
- I saw the numbers mentioned throughout, but can you provide a statement toward the end that reflected how many people were fired or otherwise lost their jobs as a result of McCarthy's tactics? Perhaps other kinds of destruction (you mentioned a suicide by someone from VOA)?
- It seems that McCarthy's drinking is mentioned in the lead, and then during his downfall, but cirrhosis sets on after many years of drinking, right? How long had he been such a heavy drinker? Was he drunk when he was bullying people giving testimony?
- I hope you will or have taken the article to WP:LOCE. I was more concerned with the overall structure and content of the article, but those folks can break it down and follow the MOS to the letter. (For example, I noticed the use of "actually" which is now a verboten word, along with "clearly" - which I did not see.)
- I did not check your references, although the article appears to be very well-referenced. I do not know the topic as well as you do, but even more than 50 years later, the topic is controversial. You may be asked during FAC to back up even more of what is stated in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)