Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/John McCain

John McCain

I think this is a good article that needs a little work. I hope that this will eventually be FA caliber. I think the article is well written but maybe could be organized better, a longer lead and some sections expanded. What do others think? Jasper23 10:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Hmmmm! One of the most intriguing political personalities around the globe! Definitely, an article about McCain in a challenge, especially for its editors but also for a reviewer (especially if the last one has watched carefully the political career of the senator as I have been doing during the last years!). These are my remarks:

The prospect of FA status may be difficult for this article, because of a major inherent difficulty: McCain is in the centre of the ongoing poilitical events in USA; his expected participation in the Republican primaries and his (probable) ensuing candidacy for the US presidency. What I mean is that there may be a problem with criterion 1e: "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day. I'm afraid that during the next months we are going to have here "day to day significan changes". It seems inevitable.
I think the lead could be a bit longer per WP:LEAD.
I see many ^{[citation needed]}. They need fixing.
"Both his father and grandfather were famous U.S. Navy admirals." How do you define "famous". Who assesses that and why?
In "Personal Life" I would like to have some more information about his first marriage.
The same section ("Personal life") needs rewriting. The prose in incoherent and the paragraphs are stubby.
Second paragraph in "Vietnam" is uncited.
"He was then tortured by Vietnamese soldiers, who bayonetted him in his left foot and groin. His shoulder was crushed by a rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton." Prose repetitions! What about an overall copy-editing?
I don't like the two last stubby paragrpahs in "Prisoner of war". They are stubby and they are mal-connected with the rest of the paragraph.
You give almost no information for his political career from 1982 to 1997. This is a huge deficiency! 3 lines for such an important career, and then straight to the 2000 primaries! What he did as a senator? How did he win? A comprehensive article must answer such questions.
Because of this deficiencies the introduction to "2000 Presidential Primary" is seamless and steep.
"He made over 200 stops, talking in every town in New Hampshire in an example of "retail politics" that overcame Bush's famous name. He won by a 60-40 landslide, and suddenly was the celebrity of the hour. Analysts predicted that a McCain victory in the South Carolina primary would give him unstoppable momentum. However, McCain lost the crucial state of South Carolina. Bush now regained the momentum." Choose a tense, stick on it and further improve the prose!
"However, McCain made serious mistakes that negated any momentum he may have regained with the Michigan victory." Hmmmm! Tricky assertion. Possibly POV. It would be better if you provided sources and rephrased like that: "According to X, McCain made serious ... "
"In mid-November 2006 early polls showed him leading Hillary Clinton." I think current polls show the opposite, but I'm not absolutely sure.
Can you explain to the ignorants what a "maverick" is? I had also read it in the Economist for McCain, but I'm still not sure about its meaning (and I think I'm not the only one).
In "Political views" you have some stubby sub-sections. Merge or expand. Or create a sub-article and summarize it here. This could be even better. Whatever you decide you certainly have to say more (in the main article or the sub-article you'll create) about his environmenal views, which are contradictory to the Bush adm and the neocon indifference towards these issues. I think McCain and Schwarzenenger are the most environmentally friendly conservative politicians, and this deserves some analysis.
Before going into details about his various POVs (environment, immigration etc.), I'd like to have some general assessments about his political presence. The fact that he is regarded as a "moderate conservative" should be stressed and analysed. And is he mainly a "realist" or an "idealist". After Rumsfeld's deposition, this division is again discussed. I was reading an article in TIME discussing whethere McCain will now prefer the support of the realists (such as the associates of the elder Bush) of his party or of the idealists (the neocons, and some close associated of Bush junior).
"McCain has consistently shown himself to be a prominent "hawk" on foreign policy." Again possibly POV. I recommend rephrasing like above and citing. Are there different opinions? Does he accept that he is a "hawk"?
In "Social issues" you go from gay marriages to abortions seamlessly. Again a problem of article flow!
What are McCain's views concerning natural selection and the opposite Evangelist theories?
I think that "Presidential Election 2004" should go to "Political career" and not "Political views". And the two last paragraphs there are stubby.
"Such restraint should come from Hezbollah and the nations sponsoring it, notably Iran, McCain said in remarks that became a freewheeling, far-reaching speech on foreign policy, including his views on matters involving North Korea, Iraq and the U.S. war on terrorism." I don't understand this phrase. Bad structure.
"McCain's brother, Joe McCain, has written a popular speech on Israel, Jews and anti-Semitism." Why is this important? And if it is important connect with the senator's views and provide more information. What does his brother say?
""Gang of 14" and Senate filibuster" is uncited. I also suggest that you provide some further clarifications for those not familiar with the American constitution and the operation of the Congress.
"McCain argues that American military and intelligence personnel in future wars will suffer for abuses committed in 2006 by the US in the name of fighting terrorism. He fears the administration's policy will put American prisoners at risk of torture, summary executions and other atrocities by chipping away at Geneva Convention. He argues that his rival bill to Bush’s plan gives defendants access to classified evidence being used to convict them and will set tight limits on use of testimony obtained by coercion. Furthermore it offers CIA interrogators some legal protections from charges of abuse, but rejects the administration’s plan to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions’ standards for humane treatment of prisoners. McCain insists this issue overrides politics." This paragraph begs for citations!
"Keating Five controversy" is stubby.
Turn "Other Controversies" into prose.
"Appearances on radio, television and in movies" also needs rewriting. It is listy.
Get rid of "Trivia" and "See also".
I'd suggest that you keep only the external links you regard as absolutely necessary.--Yannismarou 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Quite an in depth review. I agree with all of your points and when I have time I will start checking off the list. Thanks again for all your work. And I agree that FA status will be unattainable until after the primary. Jasper23 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schi

A bit late, but if you're still interested, style concerns, mostly:

Non-initial, non-proper words in headings should be lowercase. So, "Other Controversies" should be "Other controversies", and "Presidential Election 2004" should be "Presidential election 2004", except that isn't very good English - how about "2004 presidential election"?

Done. -- Satori Son 15:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of titles. You don't need to keep referring to McCain as "Senator McCain" - "McCain" is just fine.

Done. -- Satori Son 16:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several citations with improper punctuation/extra spaces, for example "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [41]" - it should be "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[41]" Likewise, "American Conservative Union rating is 83 percent[34]." should be "American Conservative Union rating is 83 percent.[34]"

Done. -- Satori Son 15:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a pain, but wikilinking complete dates is a good thing to do for readers' date preferences.
The section "Middle-East" should be "Middle East".

Done. -- Satori Son 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's at all possible, I think it's best to avoid "Controversies" sections. In this case, would it be possible to incorporate those items into the chronological, narrative accounts of his career/personal life?
The 13th cite needs to have its ref tag closed!

Done. -- Satori Son 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Vietnam" section, this bit: The Saints squadron and its parent Air Wing 16 suffered the highest loss rate of any Navy flying unit during the entire Vietnam War. This was due to the perilous missions assigned to it and to the aggressiveness of its aviators. needs citations for the POV characterizations and should also be re-worded, it's rather clunky. schi ^talk 00:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]