Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Douglas MacArthur/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 GrahamColm 16:47, 7 July 2012 [1].

Douglas MacArthur

[edit]

Douglas MacArthur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The big issue in the previous FAC seems to have been that the article was considered too large by FAC standards. On the day the FAC was archived, I'm getting: Prose size (including all HTML code): 127 kB, Prose size (text only): 76 kB (12667 words) "readable prose size". Today, I get: Prose size (including all HTML code): 118 kB, Prose size (text only): 71 kB (11654 words) "readable prose size". So, the first questions are: have FAC standards changed, and if not, is the trimming sufficient? (I don't have any view on this, I'm just trying to get us past the first hump.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FAC standards have indeed changed. A number of much larger FACs have since been approved, and today this article would not even make the top 100 in terms of size. I did cut it back severely, both during the FAC and since. My personal view about article size is that articles need to be as big as they need to be, and this one probably needs to be larger. It covers a long and very distinguished career - enough for it to qualify as a Vital article. So a great deal is expected. I think that in the severe pruning, the reader may have lost the ability to form an opinion on MacArthur's generalship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What would you like to add? - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • We lost some material about his World War II campaigns, and some bits about his private life. I believe that the former is adequately summarised, but I was just afraid that the summary style means that reader must seek a deeper understanding in the subarticles, which in this case still often do not exist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arthur MacArthur, Jr.,": Just a note that the second comma stuff is brutal for copyeditors because it's evolving and everything looks wrong to someone. This is fine with me; it's also fine to omit the second comma if there's some other punctuation there, which there is, in this case.
  • "General of the Army Douglas MacArthur ... was an American general and field marshal of the Philippine Army. He was a Chief of Staff of the United States Army during the 1930s and played ...": We get criticized from time to time if the lead in FACs is too ... "he was this, he was this". It wouldn't hurt to tighten this lead; there are many options. How about this? "General of the Army Douglas MacArthur ... was a Chief of Staff of the United States Army and a field marshal of the Philippine Army during the 1930s who played ...". Here's another opportunity: "... MacArthur attended the West Texas Military Academy, where he was valedictorian, and the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he was First Captain, and graduated ..." If he was valedictorian, then he attended, so: "... MacArthur was valedictorian at the West Texas Military Academy and First Captain at the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he graduated ..." - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two more second commas needed: "San Antonio, Texas" and "Army Chief of Staff, Major General Leonard Wood".
  • Otherwise, So far so good down to Douglas MacArthur#Veracruz expedition. You've already picked up plenty of support on this one; well done on a long, difficult and very important article. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Clarify: "... withdraw to Bataan, where they held out until May 1942. In March 1942, MacArthur, his family and his staff left Corregidor Island in PT boats ..." - Readers not familiar with the geography may not realize that Corregidor is next to / part of Bataan, so the two sentences may be perceived as not related. Can the connection be made stronger somehow?
    • Changed to "nearby Corregidor Island"
  • Clarify: "Somehow MacArthur, who did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons, became in the popular imagination the one who did." - A bit too poetic, and many readers wont be able to understand the point (frankly, Im not 100% sure what it is trying to say). Also, grammar is not quite right: "the one who did" requires a "the ..." earlier in the sentence. Suggest rewrite sentence in plainer terms.
    • Reworded: Ironically, MacArthur, who did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons, became associated with threatening their use.
  • Huge sentence: "Douglas MacArthur was born 26 January 1880, at the Arsenal Barracks in Little Rock, Arkansas to Lieutenant General Arthur MacArthur, Jr., at the time a U.S. Army captain and a recipient of the Medal of Honor for action during the American Civil War, and Mary Pinkney Hardy MacArthur (nicknamed "Pinky") from Norfolk, Virginia." - Should break into two. Also, who is from Norfolk? Just the mother? or both parents? Originally from Norfolk, or living in Norfolk at the time of birth?
    • Pinky was born in Norfolk. Why is this important? Because Norfolk is where the Douglas MacArthur museum is now located.
  • Wealth? - Do the sources indicate how (relatively) wealthy his parents/family were? If so, that should be included in the Education and early life section.
  • Hidden reason: "..Louise obtained a divorce, ostensibly on the grounds of "failure to provide"." - If the reader is told it is the ostensible reason, they should also be told the (historian's guess at) the real reason.
Yes, I understand that "failure to provide" is a legal term that was used in the divorce paperwork. My point is that the word "ostensibly" should either be removed or explained. Keeping "ostensibly" means that some underlying reason is suspected, in which case it should be explained to the reader. Or, just remove "ostensibly". --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. It was preposterous in view of Louise's vast wealth. Unfortunately, material about this was cut in the trimming process.
  • Wives in InfoBox: The infoBox has several male relatives (including a son without a WP article), but neither of his two wives, both of whom have their own WP articles. Recommend including wives.
  • Footnote #272 is missing a period at the end (but not sure if that is what Nikkimaria is talking about above).
  • Wording not ideal: "For someone who served so long, MacArthur made little impact on the Army. " - First, the mere fact that someone served a long time would not lead one to think they should have an impact (e.g. 30 yr enlisteds; or even most 30 yr generals) - instead should say "For a five-star general who served 40+ years ..."; Second, is this the editor's opinion, or do the sources say that? If the latter, need a footnote on that sentence, since it is a rather dramatic statement.
  • InfoBox formatting: In the "Rank" item: I'm seeing some ugliness caused by the five-star icon: the left parenthesis is raised up above the text (above "Army" and "United"). Should be fixed for an FA article.
Chrome / Mac OSX. If it is only me, don't worry about it. Aha .. the problem is the Skin I choose in my WP preferences. The problem shows up in the Modern skin, but goes away in the Monobook skin (have not checked the others). --Noleander (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, a great article! Leaning towards support.

End Nolender comments. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:

Tim riley (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The article is authoritative, in good prose, balanced, properly illustrated and formidably referenced. I don't see its length as in any way a drawback. In some long articles one has the impression that the author has thrown in every obtainable fact regardless of importance, but this article is very much to the point throughout. Tim riley (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, close to support -- a monumental undertaking, well done. A few thoughts for improvement at this stage; will complete this in next day or so:

  • Junior officer: He passed his examinations for promotion to first lieutenant in Manila in March 1904 and was promoted to the rank in April -- Minor point but was it unusual to have to pass an exam for promotion? I'd prefer to trim this to He was promoted to first lieutenant in April 1904.
    • No, that was normal at the time. It's really only a problem for people familiar with the moderrn system, whereby you are promoted to first lieutenant on receiving your first posting. Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War I: The 42nd Division returned to the line for the last time on the night of 4/5 November 1918. In the final advance on Sedan, it became involved in what MacArthur considered "narrowly missed being one of the great tragedies of American history." -- Don't really like "considered 'narrowly'" even though it might be grammatically okay. Can we say The 42nd Division returned to the line for the last time on the night of 4/5 November 1918, to take part in the final advance on Sedan. MacArthur later wrote that [or In MacArthur's words] the assault "narrowly missed being one of the great tragedies of American history."?
    • The Big Chief often uses Victorian grammatical idioms that are perfectly correct, but sound odd to the modern ear. Re-worded as suggested.
  • Between the wars:
    • MacArthur became romantically involved with socialite and multi-millionaire heiress Louise Cromwell Brooks. Rumors circulated that General Pershing, who was fond of Louise, had exiled MacArthur to the Philippines. This was denied by Pershing as "all damn poppycock." MacArthur married Louise on 14 February 1922 at her family's villa in Palm Beach, Florida. In October 1922, MacArthur left West Point to assume command of the Military District of Manila. -- Think we need a bit more context: 1) First sentence seems to cry out for a date or "during his posting to West Point", or some such; 2) When was Black Jack supposed to have exiled him to the Philippines to keep him away from Louise, given Mac went to Manila after he married her?
    • However, he encountered southern prejudice against the son of a Union Army officer, and requested to be relieved. -- Do we mean he encountered southern prejudice "because he was the son" of a Union Army officer? If so, think we should use the latter wording to spell it out.
      • Yes. Re-worded as suggested. Forgot to say his father was with the Union Army. Added a bit. Of course this thread ultimately leads to his entombment in Norfolk. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "We have not come 3,000 miles," he told them, "just to lose gracefully." -- Given this emphasis on Mac's grand designs, I feel we should learn something of the result, say a sentence.
  • World War II:
    • Anticipating that the Japanese would strike at Port Moresby again... -- First time you've mentioned Moresby, so the "again" needs context or rewording.
    • "the New Guinea campaign's bloodiest and most strategically useless battle." -- I think such opinionated quotes (however widely held) should be attributed in the article text. There are a number of quotes in the subsequent Luzon subsection that could use similar attention. Likewise "one of the most impressive and divisive oratorical performances of recent American times" in Relief.
      • Hawkeye, returning to this review, I don't think the above point re. "bloodiest and most strategically useless battle" has been actioned (the second is moot now as the quote's been removed). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A question for you: Do you think we need the medal of honor citation at the bottom (or somewhere else), or is the picture of the plaque good enough? The plaque is no longer readable with the images shrunk. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as I don't think the Relief section adequately summarises the subject. President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur seems more even-handed in its treatment. I have several good book sources I can perhaps use to help support a more NPOV wording here but at present I am afraid this will not do. --John (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wrote President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur as well, so I have all of its source books and articles here. Bearing in mind that a summary is all that can be included in this article, what additional points should it cover? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that this section is, as you say, a summary, I don't think the two long quotations are essential. They could be summarised and shortened. I don't like the whole paragraph that begins That day...; I think it could be rewritten to flow better. Finally and most importantly it reads like it is trying extra hard to avoid criticism of the subject; there should be no place for The relief of the famous general by the unpopular politician led to a constitutional crisis and a storm of public controversy.[256]; the adjectives are out of place in a neutral depiction of this episode. I'm immediately thinking of Dan van der Vat and Martin Gilbert who have both written quite good critical accounts of MacArthur's relief. --John (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Legacy section needs work as well, per section 1b. There should be no prejudice against including a proportional measure of sourced negative commentary here. I especially don't like "ironically".--John (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all much about his private life? --John (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I amended this because I see mention of his two marriages and one mistress. Weren't there more? Wasn't he also a famed drinker? Where is the man MacArthur in this account? I am not seeing it, I just see a very favourable military history. I need to see more detail and more balance. --John (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prosewise, there are too many sentences like "Anticipating that the Japanese would strike at Port Moresby again, the garrison was strengthened." The whole thing needs a going-over to tighten the prose. I'd say right now I oppose for completeness and prose quality. --John (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of this date I still very strongly oppose based on the over-favourable coverage of especially the later part of the subject's career. I believe it doesn't currently even meet GA standards in this regard. --John (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC) A read of Talk:Douglas MacArthur#Nuclear threats in Korea; did he or didn't he? and the following section will show some interesting discussion outlining some of the obvious problems this article has. Until they are addressed this cannot be promoted. --John (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • John, as a matter of protocol I'd suggest you unbold the "oppose" immediately above as you've already placed one earlier -- I'd do it myself if I was wearing my delegate hat in this FAC, but I've recused myself so I can review. I'd also suggest to you that whether your oppose sways other delegates or not will depend on how they see your arguments, rather than rhetoric such as your last sentence above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We must have very different understandings of the word rhetoric! In case anyone else is confused, this article currently fails on criteria 1b (completeness of coverage) and 1d (NPOV).--John (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it does have a scholarly section on it, which satisfies completeness of coverage and NPOV. Even in James's 2,000 page bio of MacArthur he spends only a two or three pages on it, as opposed to a few hundred pages on the occupation of Japan. It seems about right to give it as much space as the George Washington article devotes to the cherry tree anecdote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It don't doubt that it seems about right to you. NPOV however would dictate a more even-handed and comprehensive approach. I am happy to work with you to help make this a more balanced article. If you are interested I will see you in article talk. --John (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • NPOV does not mean equal weight. The fact that it was proven Mac never stated, in an explicit manner, that he will use nuclear weapon against China during December 1950, and the fact that the nuclear controversy was start by Truman's gaffe, should not be buried in endless analysis on Mac' intentions. Jim101 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • NPOV does not have to mean equal weight but neither should it mean zero weight. This is just a sample of what is wrong with the article at the moment. --John (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I'm probably not going to have enough time to review further, but I do have a few nit-picks in various areas...

  • Don't think McArthur's first name needs to be repeated in the second paragraph. I don't see any other family names provided earlier in the lead that could cause the confusion needed for repetition.
  • What is the rationale for using the international style of date formatting (## Month Year) instead of the typical American style (Month ##, Year) for an American subject. Not the biggest deal in the world, but I am curious.
    • I can jump in here... US military uses day-month-year. At MilHist we decided that for US military articles, either format was acceptable as long as applied consistently. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Junior officer: Somewhat strange that California isn't linked, but Texas is. Personally I wouldn't link either; there are already long stretches of blue in this section, and more probably isn't desirable.
  • Battle of Saint-Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne Offensive: "moving to the Argonne section where it relieved the 1st Division there on the night of 11 October." The word "there" strikes me as a redundancy; it adds next to nothing to the prose, and removing it doesn't seem likely to change the meaning; in fact, it would be an improvement.
  • "on the night of 4/5 November 1918." The en dash style of formatting seen earlier in this section is more MoS-friendly than using a slash, from what I understand.
  • Field Marshal of the Philippine Army: "Over the next two years, the MacArthur and Jean were frequently seen together." Second "the" needs to be removed since it's fouling up the sentence.

Giants2008 (Talk) 01:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment: Has Ian Rose's comment above been addressed? (See: "Hawkeye, returning to this review, I don't think the above point re. 'bloodiest and most strategically useless battle' has been actioned (the second is moot now as the quote's been removed)". Graham Colm (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has now. The quote has been removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Douglas_MacArthur/archive2&oldid=1076191307"