Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Glenn/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2018 [1].

John Glenn

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7, Kees08 (Talk) 03:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six Distinguished Flying Crosses, eighteen Air Medals. First American to orbit the Earth. Four-time Ohio senator. Oldest person to fly in space.

This article covers the good and the bad of his life. The article failed an A-class review, failed a FAC, passed an A-class review, and is back at FAC. I have greatly expanded his Senate career, got some images from the Senate Historical Office, and used a larger variety of sources. If you took a look at it last time or not, I would love for you to take a look at it this time! Kees08 (Talk) 03:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Here are my thoughts up to the start of the political career:

  • "He was one of the Mercury Seven, military test pilots selected in 1959 by NASA as the United States' first astronauts. " "the nation's" rather than "the United States' is easier.
  • "Glenn quit college to voluntarily enlist in the U.S. Army Air Corps.[21] Never called to duty, he enlisted as a U.S. Navy aviation cadet in March 1942." this is saying the same thing twice maybe three times. I would simplify to "Glenn quit college and enlisted as a U.S. Navy aviation cadet in March 1942"
    No it isn't. He enlisted in the Army, but was not called up. He then enlisted in the Navy. Your version skips his enlistment in the Army. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and learned that he had qualified for a regular commission.[30][23]" I don't know your views on refs in order.
Suggest running the script as there are at least two out of order that I saw.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know what the script is? Otherwise I will do it manually. Kees08 (Talk)
Do it manually. There was a lot of angst about it. Some editors were opposed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glenn, wrote Tom Wolfe" I might mention that it was in The Right Stuff.
  • "Shepard turned to Glenn and said: "Well, I'm glad they got that out of the way."[82]" I've read other versions of this ...
    • Hmm, I will see what I can find. Remember where you saw? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "A portion of the astronauts' training was in space science, but it had a practical aspect, which included scuba diving and work in simulators.[69]" Possibly rephrase, I think the reader might struggle with this sentence.
    • Rephrased to this: 'A portion of the astronauts' training was in the classroom, where they learned space science. The group also received hands-on training, which included scuba diving and work in simulators.' - I could also leave a footnote explaining what a simulator is, because that may not be clear to the layman. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Note to self/other reviewers: I found out that this particular portion of NASA's site is not reliable, per Colin Burgess (I can find a link to that if desired). I will go through and replace the citations. My mistake. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Glenn was a backup pilot for Shepard and Grissom" "a" or "the"?
  • It might be worth mentioning how close Glenn was to his target on splashdown, since this was sometimes an issue with Mercury.
    • Heh, I think I had this in there and someone removed it for excessive detail...I agree though, will find and add this. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Woops, just remembered it is in the footnote. Would you like me to bring it back to the text or leave it as a footnote? Kees08 (Talk)
    • @Wehwalt: Do you have a preference here, footnote or in prose? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "honoring Charles Lindbergh and other dignitaries.[90]" I would say "heroes", or if that's too strong "popular heroes" for "dignitaries".
    • I am fine with heroes; also considered American heroes since they were not necessarily universally considered heroes. Leaving as heroes unless someone wants it changed. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "His military and space awards were stolen from his home in 1978, and remarked that he would keep this medal in a safe." The second part of this sentence lacks a subject."
    • Added
  • The women in space and the later awards matters that come close after the 1962 spaceflight feel a bit out of place, and it would be worth considering moving them elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have considered removing it from the article completely but decided it was important enough to leave, considering he made a speech to congress about it. Chronologically it fits there, and I am hesitant to put it in a separate 'Views' section since that view likely changed later in his career. Long-winded way to ask: any place you recommend for it to go? Kees08 (Talk)
    • For the later awards, I could move them back to the Legacy section, I was trying something new. The legacy section has several paragraphs of awards that are won for specific missions, so I decided to move it inline with the mission, and leave the more general awards in the Legacy section. So do you think I should move them to the Legacy section unless they were won soon after the mission? Kees08 (Talk)
My view is a "Legacy" section should be about the effect the person had on the world. I would suggest viewing some Legacy sections on FAs to get an idea. They aren't always easy to write and require a little more than just putting in facts, but a little more analytical. Glenn undoubtedly inspired many people to take up space (so to speak) or sciences, his legislative service no doubt inspired others. This is separate from a section on awards and honors won.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could put them as a list in a quote box.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration, I like them where they are. Let me know if you feel strongly about moving the information. Kees08 (Talk)

Thanks for the review; it is a very, very long article and I appreciate it. I will address other comments later. Hawkeye7, would you be able to address the second bullet point? If you are too busy I will make an effort. Also, as a note, the political career section will be the roughest. I rewrote it after the first A-class comments, after the first FAC, and again after the A-class comments. If you could look at it with an extra critical eye I would appreciate it. Thanks again for your time. Kees08 (Talk)

OK, resuming.
  • "Glenn was in consideration to be promoted to full colonel," "in consideration to be promoted" seems wordy. Is there a term used in the military for this?
  • Why did Glenn not seek the Senate seat that was up in 1968?
  • "During that time period, he opened a Holiday Inn with a friend, near Disney World. " Disney World did not open until the 1970s.
    • The book says "...near the site of the new Disney World south of Orlando, Florida..." It does not specify the year, but chronologically it is right before he starts talking about 1967. Construction for the resort began in 1967, so maybe they built and opened it before the park opened in 1971? Not really sure what to do about this, based on what I have in his book. Kees08 (Talk)
I would let it stand as is, on consideration.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glenn was with him in Los Angeles when he was assassinated in 1968," First, I think it unnecessary to state the year, given it is in the previous sentence. Second, I think a little more detail on exactly where Glenn was relative to RFK at the time of the shooting would be interesting to the reader. One's presence at a major assassination is worthy of a couple of sentences of detail, if possible.
    • I think I could write a whole section on his relationship with Kennedy. I added more detail of where Glenn was, that he went to the hospital with them, and that he took the children home to Virginia. Thought about adding that he was one of two people to inform the children of Kennedy's death, and that in his memoir he said it was one of the hardest things he had ever done, but had decided not to because I was adding a lot of detail to that section. I can add that in if you think I should though. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "4:1" I would make sure MOS is cool with that or if it should be 4–1 (or some other dash).
  • "Metzenbaum later lost the general election to Robert Taft Jr.[1] " I should cut "later"
  • "Glenn continued to remain active in the political scene" I would shorten to "Glenn remained active in the political scene"
  • "In 1974, Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired by President Nixon. The Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, resigned in protest of the firing during the Saturday Night Massacre." It was more that Richardson resigned rather than fire Cox as Nixon had demanded. And it was 1973.
    • A little embarrassed at how bad I messed up there. Fixed. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Ohio Senator William Saxbe, elected in 1968, was appointed Attorney General, which freed up an Ohioan seat. In the wake of the new vacancy, Ohio's governor John Gilligan needed to appoint a new senator. Metzenbaum and Glenn both vied for the position." This could be shortened and some duplicative prose eliminated, "Ohio Senator William Saxbe, elected in 1968, was appointed Attorney General. Both Glenn and Metzenbaum sought the vacated seat, which was to be filled by Governor Gilligan." or similar.
  • "with the thought Glenn would ascend to governor when Gilligan was elected to a higher position." I would put a "that" before "Glenn". Glenn's reaction seems a bit extreme, just from the text of what I'm reading, which seems innocent enough.
    • True. The Democratic party backed Gilligan's proposal, which is where the bossism claims came from. Added that in there, as well as Glenn's proposal for a solution. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "in January" "in January 1974"
  • "Glenn challenged Metzenbaum again in the primary for the Ohio Senate seat.[130]" Possibly preface it that Metzenbaum was only appointed to serve the remainder of Saxbe's term, to January 1975
    • I made an effort, but had a different idea on how to phrase it if you do not like how I did it. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "The campaign changed their focus," "their" should probably be "its"
  • "In the 1976 presidential election, Glenn was a candidate for the Democratic vice-presidential nomination." Probably more accurate and informative to say that Carter was the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, and Glenn was among several people he was reported to be considering."
    • I rewrote the first couple of sentences. Should be better now. Kees08 (Talk)
  • You might want to mention, in the 1980 campaign, what opposition if any he faced in the primary, and that Betts was a Republican.
    • Added that Betts was a Republican, and a paragraph on the primary Kees08 (Talk)
    • Note to myself and to you that I am adding the primary information into each election. Just taking some time to do so. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Ohio's result was the opposite of the national election, in which Republican President Reagan won a decisive victory.[142]" He was not yet president. I might mention that Reagan won Ohio in 1980.
    • Decided to remove the sentence, it is a bit more detail than needed for Glenn's article. Kees08 (Talk)
  • " his experience as an Ohioan Senator was ideal, since it has diversity." I'd like to avoid "Ohioan" as much as possible, since it stands out a bit. Maybe "his experience as senator from Ohio was ideal, due to its diversity."
    • Did it a little different, but pretty much as you requested Kees08 (Talk)
  • " receiving a reprieve from the Federal Election Commission.[151][152]" Is there a place in the article where the issue of campaign debts is gone through? Reprieve sounds a bit POV if people didn't get paid.
    • That was the exact word the NYT used. Not sure what I could use in its place. I do not go through it all in one spot, but starting at the presidential election it is mentioned in each section. I prefer that strategy; I can add it to other sections if you think I should. I would have to look at how big his debts were, I do not think they became a big issue until the presidential campaign though. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "After winning the race, Glenn remarked, "We proved that in 1986, they couldn't kill Glenn with Kindness."[154] He won the race with 62% of the vote.[155]" These sentences could easily be combined.
  • Since DeWine certainly tasked Glenn with his Keating 5 involvement in 1992, shouldn't something be said about that in the campaign section?
  • "during his inaugural year" I would say "freshman" for "inaugural"
  • "CFOs" I would at least link.
  • The latter portion of the governmental affairs section is a bit disjointed and doesn't tie well together.
    • I agree and am working to correct this. Will update you when it is more jointed. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Wasn't sure where to say this, but this slate article of him shows that we have covered the major points of his political career, which is good! Kees08 (Talk)
    • @Wehwalt: Would you be able to take a look at this section and see if it is going in the right direction? Do you think it needs more work? Kees08 (Talk)
It's better. More organized than it was.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " at the end of his term in December 1998.[186]" His term ended in January 1999.
    • Fixed. Was not stoked about that ref so I replaced it with a better one. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "He was an original owner of a Holiday Inn franchise near Orlando, Florida, which is today the Seralago Hotel & Suites Main Gate East.[205]" You mention this above, and possibly the link (with more information, perhaps) should be there.
    • Moved it from Personal Life to the section it is discussed the first time. Kees08 (Talk)
Done through personal life.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about being so slow. Resuming.
    • No worries, sorry about taking a lot of time to address them. Speaking of, would you be able to collapse the comments that are addressed? Would make it easier for me to see how much is left. Kees08 (Talk)
  • In addition to the memorial service at OSU, wasn't there one at NASA, I think at KSC, attended by many astronauts?
    • I only saw one astronaut spoke there, did not see anything about more. I mentioned that one occurred but did not add much detail, if I do I would have to expand the other memorial. Let me know if you think that is necessary. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Is the thing about letting people view the remains really worth including? If you do, I wouldn't name the guy who did it. But I'd cut the whole thing.
    • Since it is still being reported on in 2018, I think so. If someone else disagrees I will remove it. I added the new information that came out a couple months ago. Since the official investigation showed he did make the offer, I think it is fine to have the name, but I can be persuaded. Kees08 (Talk)
I guess the feeling that having your name in a Wikipedia article should not be a reward for poor conduct. I agree, there are multiple ways of looking at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legacy section seems more about his awards and honors. I would think a widely admired astronaut/longtime US senator would have more of a legacy of that, through inspiration and legislation if nothing else. Tell me what he left behind him that resonates for the good of humanity today. I'd rather see talk about that than some road in Ohio.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We used to call the section 'Awards and Honors', but since it sometimes included other information we renamed it to Legacy. It was never really meant to recount his legacy. Perhaps renaming the section would be better than rewriting it? Maybe back to Awards and honors? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Glenn was the only senator from Ohio to serve four Senate terms.[200]" This may be true since the 17th Amendment, but shouldn't be stated unconditionally because John Sherman.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird, suppose the newspaper was technically correct, but since it is not the most by a senator from Ohio I removed it since it is not particularly notable. Kees08 (Talk)

I still believe you need a section such as I describe.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I just finished moving and got internet yesterday, so should be able to take care of it soon. Kees08 (Talk) 06:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Could you ping me?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: What do you think of what I have written? Was that at least along the lines of what you were thinking? Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Bolden comment is the sort of thing, yes. I don't know about the first two sentences, maybe you should switch that to quotes. Probably he inspired people to take up science, astronauts to join the program, spread goodwill through the world tours NASA sent him on in 1962. I suspect it's all going to be positive, but if you can find stuff that balances a bit, perhaps regarding the Keating 5, that would be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt:I switched up one of the first two sentences. Obama's quote had all the major events that add up to his legacy. I left the first sentence to introduce the paragraph, but used an Aldrin quote for the second. Thoughts on it now? Kees08 (Talk) 01:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still think more needs to be said. I don't think this is breaking new ground, I feel every biography of a significant figure needs to have some historiographical material, with much of it from a context more neutral than the lauding of the dead.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most astronauts from the 1959, 1962 and 1963 classes have a biography - a whole book written about them - but very few have more than one. After that the books disappear and we have to use anthologies and biographical web pages. Glenn is no exception; he has one biography. This puts him ahead of most senators, whose articles are mainly sourced from news sites, as is most of this article's content on Glenn's senate career. I don't think what you have in mind is possible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll take your word on the sources, as I can't ask for what isn't possible. Otherwise seems in good order.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD

[edit]

Seems a well-written and comprehensive account. Support provisionally, subject to Wehwalt's comments above. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Argento Surfer

[edit]

Initial thoughts:

It'll take a while for me to read through and give more detailed thoughts. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, thank you for taking the time. Kees08 (Talk) 05:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the opening sentence, there are wikilinks for engineer and astronaut, but not for politician. These all strike me as equally common, so I think they should all be linked, or none should be.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life says his dad "worked for a plumbing firm", then later "his father started his own business, the Glenn Plumbing Company". Are these referring to the same company? If so, I think the first instance should be clarified from worked for to owned and operated.
    No, they are not referring to the same company. His father apprenticed to multiple firms. In 1923, his apprenticeship completed, he went to work fort Bertel Welch. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Annie majored in music" - Annie needs to be introduced better than this. She's mentioned three times before the article says who she is. I think the first paragraph (minus the last sentence) from Personal life should be migrated to Early life.
    Done. Moved this back into its chronological position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sports (Football, Volleyball, Swimming) are linked but others (Tennis, Basketball) aren't. This should be consistent, and I lean toward unlinking all of them.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muskingum awarded his degree in 1962, after Glenn's Mercury space flight" - This isn't early life, and it breaks the chronology of the article. I suggest either turning this into a note or moving it to personal life.
    It breaks the chronology a little, but keeps the education information together. It also drums home the point that he did not have a bachelor's degree, and could have been passed over in 1959 for that. Moved to a footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War II links to Kansas and Virginia but not Texas, California, or North Carolina. This should be consistent one way or the other. This list of states isn't exhaustive.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some military ranks are linked (second lieutenant) are linked, but others (Major) aren't.
    Actually, major is linked later when Glenn obtains the title, but that isn't its first use.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the staff of the Commandant, Marine Corps Schools" - is there a word missing here? Commandant of the Marine Corps doesn't mention a school. This may just be misunderstanding on my part.
    No, but changed to "Commandant of the Marine Corps Schools", which is also valid. The position of Commandant of the Marine Corps Schools was created at Quantico in 1920. It became the Marine Corps Development and Education Command (MCDEC) in 1968, and the United States Marine Corps Training and Education Command in 1989. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Any more thoughts? No pressure or rush, just checking in. Kees08 (Talk) 03:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my job got a little busy and then I took a short vacation. I hope to finish looking through the article this week. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

This nom has been open more than seven weeks without gaining consensus to promote and really should've been archived by now but it looks to me that the nominators are awaiting follow-up from a couple of reviewers, which might tip the balance. @Argento Surfer and Wehwalt: did you have anything to add? ASAP if so, pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be upset if you closed the nomination. We are still missing an image and a source review. An image review has previously been performed by Nikkimaria, and only a couple have changed since then, so perhaps that could be remedied without much effort, but a source review would be a massive undertaking and the nomination is pretty far into the process. I will leave the decision to you. I hope to make this a featured article, but if that has to happen in the future, so be it. Kees08 (Talk) 02:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some forward progress is being made so I'm loath to archive this. We need the source/image review fairly soon so if the noms can scare up any willing victims that would be helpful. --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria and Mike Christie: Nikkimaria, would you be interested in performing an image review? You performed one for the A-class review, I can try to find someone else if you would like. Mike, would you be available for a source review? It is a long article with many sources, so I understand if you do not want to. Thanks for the consideration. Kees08 (Talk) 19:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of other commitments and wouldn't be able to do one quickly, and I'm away this coming weekend without much access so couldn't do one then either, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redditaddict69 - Comments

[edit]

Image review

  • File:John_Glenn_Low_Res.jpg: also per the discussion at A-class, suggest changing the source to reflect the information you were provided by email
    When I look this up, I keep finding the black and white version. Do you think the image was colourised? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We could use this image Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Senate historian sent me three images: one was the non-colorized version of the John_Glenn_Low_Res, another was the photo of him talking in the Senate I have in the article, and a third is a color portrait of him. It is not terribly high quality, but I could replace the current image with it. Not sure who colorized the image we have. Unfortunately it would be the same issue where I have no OTRS ticket for it and the Senate historian indicated they did not want to submit one. I can forward anyone the emails I have from them, but that is the only proof that I have. Do you have a preference? Kees08 (Talk) 02:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the previous review, I would suggest adding details regarding what was learned via email to the image description page directly, rather than using only the dead link as a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reminder. I have updated the source to indicate it is from the email, and included in the edit summary that I can be contacted for the email. Is there anything else you would suggest here? Kees08 (Talk) 02:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually less clear - that image would have multiple potential copyrights to consider, only one of which is currently tagged. With regards to the original, under US law, reproducing a 2D work does not garner a copyright for the person making the reproduction. Thus, we don't care who took the photo - what matters is the status of the item itself. On that Hawkeye is potentially correct: it may not warrant copyright protection, although that line is blurry. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your point on reproducing a 2D work. Now we just need to focus on the buttons themselves. I think Hawkeye brings up a great point. It is just plain text, I do not think it crosses the threshold of originality. Do you agree? Kees08 (Talk) 02:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Do you think I need to make additional changes here? Kees08 (Talk) 00:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

- spotchecks not done

    • The information was removed at some point, but I added it back with a different citation. Kees08 (Talk)
  • FN267: given link does not appear to include honorees before 2010
    • You have to click 'next' or search for Glenn with the search box. If you know a way to include that in the citation, I can include those instructions. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Compare FNs 256 and 271
    • The publisher is now consistent across the references. Kees08 (Talk)
  • In the External links section, the first C-SPAN link includes the second.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2018 (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 "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Glenn/archive2&oldid=866573221"