Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Glenn

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Glenn

edit
Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk), Hawkeye7 (talk)

John Glenn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This will be my second nomination for the John Glenn article. This first nomination was closed as no consensus, since it did not have sufficient supports to be promoted. I then nominated it for FA, which received a substantial amount of comments towards the end of the nomination I did not have time to address. I intend to add those comments into here, and address them. The article did not pass FA. I would like to get a successful A-class review to make the FA-review a little easier. Kees08 (Talk) 19:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I had a look at this last time it was at ACR. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • at five paragraphs, the lead is one too many per WP:LEAD; I suggest trying to merge a paragraph or two
    • Merged the last one w/ the second to last one, let me know if that is fine. Merger seems to make sense. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Jim Betts is dab link
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, pp. 13-16": the hyphen should be an endash
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, pp. 167-169.": same as above
  • "Wolfe 1979, pp. 41-42": same as above
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, p. 111–117": should be a double p
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, p. 180–184": same as above
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, p. 204–206": same as above
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, pp. 189": should be a single p
  • Citation # 131 should have more bibliographic information, e.g. publisher, author, accessdate
  • "James Dean" --> "Dean, James"
  • " Almost Heaven: the Story..." --> " Almost Heaven: The Story..."
  • "organisation" --> "organization"
  • "and two and a half months of jet training at Cherry Point" --> "and after two and a half months of jet training at Cherry Point"
  • "specialisation" --> "specialization"
  • this needs a ref: "Metzenbaum won, 57 to 41 percent. In his 1980 reelection campaign, Glenn won by the largest margin ever for an Ohio Senator, defeating Jim Betts in 1980."
  • this seems like editorialising: "Predictably, there was some skepticism and concern about the effects of space travel on a septuagenarian, even though Glenn would not have to perform much in the way of physically or mentally exerting activities on the mission, and what would happen if he were to experience a medical emergency in orbit? NASA assured the public that Glenn was not merely being given a free seat on the Shuttle, and he would have to pass the same physical exam as the other crew members."
    • Removed that, not sure why that was there. When I glanced at that before, I thought it was part of the article, but it was not. Kees08 (Talk)
  • this needs a ref: "At the time of his death, John Glenn was the last surviving member of the Mercury Seven."

I believe you on the p vs pp citations, but out of curiosity, which guideline shows how to use them properly? Kees08 (Talk) 00:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of specific guidelines, but this has something on it: Wikipedia:Citation templates. I image that the various style guides (e.g. Chicago, APA, etc) also provide something on this, and the links here probably also have something: {{Wikipedia referencing}}. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Covered all those actions, make sure you are happy with them. Have any more comments? Kees08 (Talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unaddressed comments from FAC

  • Metzenbaum's eventual victory seems better suited to the next subsection, where its relevance is clear.
  • "Late 70s and 80s campaigning" has a lot going on, but is not clear. When did he run for president?
  • Why was there tension, and why did it thaw?
    • I removed all this. The answer is there was tension because they campaigned against each other; it thawed because they both eventually won Senate seats, but I do not think it is important enough to include in the article. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Why is Metzenbaum's 1988 election relevant?
    • Relevant because of bullet point above, removed though because of reason above Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Glenn introduced bills on energy policy to try to counter the energy crisis in the 70s." The trouble with politicians is that probably most senators expressed a desire to "counter the energy crisis". It's political hot air. What did the bill do to counter it? That is what is relevant.
  • " based on nuclear non-proliferation," perhaps better as "promoting nuclear non-proliferation"?
  • Also the subsection title is a bit strange: perhaps "Activities" would be more appropriate.
    • It is mostly about his committees, so I put that in there. Perhaps we can think of a better one yet. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "In 1979, another dispute Glenn had with President Carter was Glenn's stance on the SALT II treaty" Overly complex wording
  • Rather heavy use of the OSU source in that section...
  • "illegal foreign donations by China" is it possible for China to make either legal or domestic donations? Maybe better as "donations by the Chinese government to...At the time, foreign donations to political campaigns..."
    • I need to reword this better still, I have been reading about the scandal so I will be able to phrase it correctly. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Considerable acrimony existed between Glenn and committee chair Fred Thompson of Tennessee." Why?Also didn't the article just say Collins was chair?
    • Yes, that was horribly written; the chair for something else. I need to split that off into another paragraph or just add more information about both committees. Kees08 (Talk)
  • We definitely need more detail in the savings and loans scandal section; not negative information, necessarily, but for the uninformed reader to have at least some idea of what he was accused of doing wrong.
  • "Aide Greg Schneiders" Presumably Glenn's aide, but the article should say so.
  • "He received all of his degrees in full in a Mason at Sight ceremony from the Grand Master of Ohio in 1978, 14 years after petitioning his lodge" To a person such as myself who knows little to nothing of the Masons, this is incomprehensible.
  • There's a picture of Annie here, but Annie isn't actually mentioned in the personal life section.
    • Moved her information to the personal life section, makes more sense there. Kees08 (Talk)
  • I find the formatting of the awards rather strange, but I know little about military article conventions, so I won't make any suggestions here, except to say that you could combine Awards, Illness and death, and the "retirement" section into a single "Death and legacy" section with three subsections; but that's not necessary, the current structure is okay.

@Vanamonde: You are not required to participate in this discussion, but I am going to address the rest of your points I did not cover during the FAC here. I think I grabbed most or all of them. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I did not co-nominate with you because I thought you might want to add comments, but I suppose co-nominating makes more sense. You want to be co-nom on this A-class? Kees08 (Talk) 00:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I didn't comment because I wrote much of the military service section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case it looks like this is stalled, I am performing a major rewrite of the entire section on politics. I will ping reviewers again when I am finished in case they want to re-review that section. I am looking to address the comments above, which were numerous, and true. Kees08 (Talk) 07:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Hey Hawkeye, I just finished a major rewrite of his political career. I mostly added information, everything was disjointed because there was not enough written about this portion of his career. Could you give that a once-over? Also, since it was not chronological, that added to the confusion. Additionally, could you look over the Legacy and Personal life sections? I am not sure what to do with the Freemason paragraph. That should finish addressing the comments that were above. I have been trying to get everything addressed as this is nearing the bottom of the queue, and I will be unable to edit for a short period in the near future. If you do not have time to work on those sections let me know and I will try to get it done. Kees08 (Talk) 05:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

edit

Comments from Dank

edit

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've checked the diff since I last edited this. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: I rewrote his political sections, so you may want to take another look at it. Kees08 (Talk) 01:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Factotem

edit
  • Infobox. I haven't checked every detail, but there are some that are not supported by statements in the main narrative or a cite. Examples are Roth as preceding and succeeding Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Voinovich as succeeding Senator for Ohio, and the dates of tenure for these two offices. Everything that appears in the infobox must be supported by sources, either in the main narrative, or directly cited in the infobox.
  • Section "Early life and education", 2nd para. The last sentence kinda jumped out at me as irrelevant until I read the footnote. Maybe consider paraphrasing parts of that note into the main narrative instead?
    • Seem odd to have any of that in there at all, not very summary style. Removed it along with the note. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Section "World War II", 1st para. "Never called to duty". Is it just me or is that a bit too grandiose and puffy? I would have written something along the lines of "He enlisted voluntarily...".
    It's a technical term. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 2nd para. Seems odd to refer to "pre-flight training" when the previous section describes his first solo flight in a military aircraft, and to me "pre-flight" is a series of checks that a pilot makes before taking off. Does your use of the term here reflect how it's used in the sources? Would "initial flight training" be better?
    Error. Should be "flight training". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same para. flew R4D transport planes. Glenn was posted to the Marine Corps Air Station El Centro in California in July 1943 and joined VMO-155, which flew the F4F Wildcat fighter. This seems to be a bit of a leap in the narrative. Was it normal to simply transfer from transports to fighters?
    Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same para. Looking up Distinguished Flying Cross, it's awarded for "heroism or extraordinary achievement", yet there's no information about the actions for which he was twice awarded this medal, which seems odd, especially when, to my layman eyes, so few missions were flown.
    That would be one way of doing it I suppose. Or you could just fly 20 missions over enemy territory. You can read his citations here. Added the link to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 3rd para. "shortly before the Pacific War's end" -> "shortly before the end of the war in the Pacific". This gets rid of the ugly truncated wlink caused by the possessive and, I believe, "Pacific War" is not a proper name so "War" should not be capitalisied.
    Pacific War is a proper name, so war is capitalised. Changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same para. Couple of nitpicky prose issues: "yet another Corsair squadron" and "He finally returned home in December 1948."
  • Section "Korean War", 1st para. I think a parenthetical clause explaining what (the rather obscure) K-3 is would be good here, rather than forcing the reader to click the link to find out. Also, it seems odd that the narrative begins with an application to fly F-86s but jumps to details about flying F9Fs without explanation.
    Chronological order; he checked out on the F-86, but was not yet seconded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 2nd para. "which was faster and better armed more heavily armed still"?
  • Section "Selection", 2nd para. NASA is already linked and abbreviated in the previous para, so you could just go with NASA here.
  • Same section, 3rd para. First mention of Shepard should be full name and linked. This is actually done 2 paras later.
  • Section "Friendship 7 flight", 2nd para, There were eleven delays during the countdown due to equipment malfunctions, improvements to equipment functioning properly and the weather. "...improvements to equipment functioning properly..." is an odd construction, and repeats the word equipment. Could this be written as "There were eleven delays during the countdown due to weather and equipment adjustments and malfunctions"?
  • Same section, 3rd para. Note b is unsourced, and 17,500mph is repeated.
  • Section "1964 Senate attempt", 1st para, ... that he run for the U.S. Senate from Ohio in 1964... for Ohio?
  • Section "1964 Senate attempt". Hyphenate "re-election" (or is hyphenless acceptable in AmEng?).
    • Looked it up, it looks like non-hyphenation is acceptable in AmEng. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Section "Awards and honors". There's a large amount of linking in the 2 paras of text. I can understand that links for awards and institutions are useful, but not so sure about linking Staten Island, Manchester, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars or Smithsonian Institution (both are detailed and linked in the article Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service), NCAA (detailed and linked from the Theodore Roosevelt Award article), Cleveland, Dayton and Seven Hills.
  • There are a large number of duplicate links, for example, World War I, Marine Corps, United States Air Force. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is your friend here.

That's all from me. Hope this helps. Factotem (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Would you mind cleaning up the military history section (and whatever sections you please)? I have added you as a co-nominator. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 07:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: I think I addressed all your points. I did a massive rewrite of his political sections, so you may want to take a look at that again. Kees08 (Talk) 01:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still some, to my mind, unnecessary linking in the Awards and honors section, which you haven't addressed either by removing them from the article or explaining their rationale here. Apart from that, looks good to me. Factotem (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a couple of overlinked terms. Not sure if that addresses your concerns, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's still to my mind some MOS:OVERLINKing. I don't see the need to link to Tokyo, for example, when the Nihon University article also provides that link, and Tokyo is in itself not relevant to this article's subject. The same goes for Staten Island, Manchester, Woodrow Wilson International Center and Cleveland. Factotem (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: Took another stab at it, let me know if it is still too much. Kees08 (Talk) 00:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CPA-5

edit

It is an intresting article, i hope this'll help you, goodluck. Cheers CPA-5 (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the references refer to the U.S. Senate, shouldn't they remain capitalized? Kees08 (Talk) 07:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i did not realise it was a name of a kinda organisation my bad. By the way the "candidacy for the U.S. Senate" line needs to be unlinked cause there are two "U.S. Senate" in just one section. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert and Hawkeye7: Hey there, I have limited time to edit for a couple of weeks, so I want to make sure I focus it well. What do I need to specifically do to finish this up for A-class? Kees08 (Talk) 03:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, the article probably needs an image review. @Nikkimaria: would you mind taking a look? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • John_Glenn_Low_Res.jpg: source link is dead. Same with John_Glenn_Signature.svg, File:Carter_vp_buttons.jpg
    • Not sure the rules on John_Glenn_Low_res; it is his official Senate photo so PD. I have an email conversation ongoing with a Senate historian, they should be putting an OTRS ticket in for all of his official Senate photos and hopefully we will get some additional committee photos. Is it required that this is done though? Since it is his official Senate portrait? Kees08 (Talk)
      • Well, without a source, how do we know it's his official Senate portrait? The now-dead link is not to a Senate site... Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair, I had a similar thought when I saw the URL. I will continue discussions with the historian. Kees08 (Talk)
        • @Nikkimaria: I received word back from the historian; unfortunately, they did not express interest in using OTRS and I neglected to CC OTRS on the emails. They sent me three photos and said they were all PD. One is a black and white version of the photo in question, for some reason with the flag edited out of the background. If you would like, I can forward you the email chain, depending on the level of WP:AGF you are at with me. I can verify the image in question is PD, but can provide the additional evidence if you would like. I believe one of the other photos is not on Commons as well, so I will work to get that uploaded if that is the case. Kees08 (Talk) 08:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wonder if OTRS would be willing to accept the email chain if it was forwarded by you. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to the person I checked with, unfortunately no. Kees08 (Talk) 19:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, can you add some elaboration to the image description as to why your contact believes the image to be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • I changed the credit to be what the historian requested; the tag would remain the same though, as the historian asserts it is public domain, and that the credit goes to the U.S. Senate Historical Office (the change requested on the image page). Therefore it would be PD due to work of U.S. government as the tag states. I am trying one last ditch effort to get it OTRS confirmed (I forwarded the message back to the historian and CC'ed OTRS, asking them to confirm they are PD). I will let you know if that works (usually gets back to me in 3-4 business days). Kees08 (Talk) 01:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not positive I had to fix the signature file, since it is PD either way, but I found an archived link. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Found the source archived Kees08 (Talk)
  • Per the NASA tag, use of logos, insignias, and emblems is restricted - is this usage compatible?
  • Ohio_US_Senate_Election_Results_by_County,_1992.svg needs a source to support the data presented
  • File:Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom_(ribbon).png should have the same tag as File:SpaceFltRib.gif. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, I believe correctly (over the previous license, which I think would be invalid). Kees08 (Talk)

@Nikkimaria: Addressed the comments, let me know if addressed well enough. Kees08 (Talk) 05:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on NASA to get back to me, let me know if we are good on the Senate image. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 08:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I have not heard back from either group; how should we move forward? Kees08 (Talk) 01:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, keep the Senate portrait and ditch the insignia. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done for both this article and Neil Armstrong. Kees08 (Talk) 03:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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_Glenn&oldid=838737968"