Wikipedia:Featured article review/George B. McClellan/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC).

George B. McClellan

 * Notified: WikiProject Military history

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because, since its promotion in 2007, the article has atrophied somewhat, but more importantly, it doesn't hold up to today's Featured Article standards. The sources are rather condensed into a few (the first half is essentially from one book), and some POV has crept in. The main article writer has since retired so the likelihood of the article improving again is slim. Wizardman 04:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * To repeat my comments during the pre-FAR discussion on the article's talk page, the article is pushing what I believe is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint that McClellan was a successful general who was wrongly sacked. Everything I've read on the topic (which is a fair amount, with a focus on the standard works on the US Civil War and Lincoln's relationship with his generals) has concluded that McClellan was a failure as a battlefield commander and Lincoln should have sacked him much earlier. My edits to remove POV pushing from the lead illustrate this issue, but similar material crops up in the body of the article. I'd also note that the article devotes too little attention to McClellan's presidential campaign (and I believe that the claim that he would have continued the war if elected is incorrect or at least needs further explanation) and his term as the governor of New Jersey. Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To summarise the entry in my copy of the Oxford Companion to Military History, McClellan possessed "caution bordering on paralysis" and "totally lacked the killer instinct". It also states that Lee met him on unequal terms at Antietam because he had such contempt for him as a commander. On the positive side, it indicates that McClellan showed a skill in retreat during the Seven Days battles, and that he re-organised the Army of the Potomac and restored its confidence after First Bull Run. It's a tertiary source, but the general thrust of it should be reflected in our article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, in addition to the above points, I'd add that there are many areas of the article that appear unreferenced. For retention of FA status, I would suggest that it should have at least a citation at the end of each paragraph in the body, and after every quote. The citation banner/tag in the Battle of Antietam sub section will need to be rectified too, if possible. The duplicate link checker indicates that there are potentially quite a few terms that are overlinked, although some of them may be ok. I'd also suggest that the placement of images could be improved. In a couple of places (on my screen at least) the text seems to be sandwiched between several images. I'd help with the referencing if I could, but unfortunately this isn't a topic I know much about, nor do I have any sources on the Civil War on my bookshelves, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Just pinging a few Milhist editors that might be able to help and have an interest in the ACW,. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add Hawkeye7 to the mix as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the American Civil War is outside my area of expertise.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there are two "jobs" here. Firstly, fixing the content and correcting the POV stuff. Once that is done, fixing the MOS, image licensing, a copy-edit, etc. For this FAR to have any chance of bringing the article up to FA standard, one or more editors need to put their hand up for the first job. To do it they will need some knowledge and expertise regarding the ACW in general, and access to the relevant sources. Unfortunately, that isn't me. I am happy to do the second job if someone can be found to do the first one, but the first one needs to be done before the second one starts. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also happy to help on the second, always, but first someone has to do the first. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have the library and the knowledge to tackle this one. However, I shudder at the size of the task, so I will not promise anything. Please note that all authors that I have read are critical of McClellan. He was a very able organizer and strategist, but he seems to have convinced himself that he was always outnumbered (it was the other way around), which made him very cautious. President Lincoln once remarked about McClellan, "He's got the slows." Djmaschek (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Djmaschek. Having at least one ACW specialist would make a big difference. I suggest focussing on the areas identified above, a section at a time. Anything I can do to help, let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A week later and no article edits. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest moving straight to a FARC discussion per the above. It would be a major project to return this article to FA status, and no-one seems to be in a position to take it on at present. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Move to FARC. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delist. Unsourced statements, paragraphs and sections. DrKay (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist Article is biased towards a weird fringe view that McClennan was a successful battlefield general and gives excessive weight to his military career as compared to his political career. It would need very substantial work to return to FA status. Nick-D (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist per unsourced text and MILHIST colleagues feedback indicating POV. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist absent someone with access to the necessary sources and time to commit to fixing the POV issues in particular, this isn't going to get better soon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.