Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John McCain/1

John McCain

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Weak keep. The grounds of "Fails NPOV" by the nominator were not generally sustained, although some NPOV problems were found and fixed. Instead the discussion centred around the reliability of the sources, in particular the newspaper articles by Muller (updated by Nowicki). It was accepted that this source is more reliable than first appearances suggest, but that it should be used with caution when matters of opinion are concerned. The current usage is now (only just) careful enough for the GA standard, but may need to be revisited at FAC. Geometry guy 22:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * John McCain was listed as having GA status on April 18, 2008. It has now been delisted (sort of, I don't think s/he did it quite correctly) by User:Dr.enh, with the reason "Fails NPOV".  I believe that the article still fulfills all the requirements of WP:GAC, including the neutrality criteria #4, and that it has not changed much since it became GA.  I therefore challenge the delisting, and would appreciate discussion of it here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article was delisted by a single editor who has disrupted the article.  User:Dr.enh initially inserted some material into the article on 9 June 2008.  It was subsequently removed.  He has subsequently reverted eight more times, and counting.  This slow-motion edit war has pitted Dr.enh against User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, User:Ferrylodge, User:Arzel, User:Coemgenus, and User:C08040804.  Discussion about the disputed material has occurred at the article talk page here, but Dr.enh has just kept on reinserting the disputed material, and now has single-handedly delisted this GA.  I believe that the article still fulfills all the requirements of WP:GAC.  The good article review for this article was extensive, and was primarily supervised by  User:Eustress.  The good article review discussions from mid-April can be found   here and here.  User:Dr.enh is most concerned about a section of the article that was written primarily in late-April (after the good article review), with extensive talk page discussion. Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep completely passes all the GA criteria. This is a bad faith nom. Happyme22 (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The review was inadequate and the delisting guidelines were not followed. I recommend restoring GA status for now (and intend to do so later today UTC), but keeping this reassessment open just in case there are genuine GA issues with the article. If this reassessment turns into content dispute or a political battlefield, I will close it with extreme prejudice :-) Geometry guy 08:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the talk page of the article is a mess, I think the action taken was inappropriate. It is probably a form of POV pushing although it is borderline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It is not only considerate but also necessary that the editor requesting reassessment/deletion elaborate upon the reasoning for this action (a GA reassessment criterion (step #3) requires that a message be left on the article talk page detailing any problems; our votes will be based on circumstances rather than content unless a more extended rationale is provided). Therefore, unless more explanation is given, the article should be returned to GA status without deliberation. Parenthetically, because there have been several edits by various editors since GAN, I think a peer review and/or copy edit would help ease the flow of the article and aid it on its way to FAC. --Eustress (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I forgot to mention that we did have a peer review in May, after the good article review.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article passed less than two months ago.  The delist nomination is in bad faith, and should be closed.  Coemgenus 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which of these two statements are relevant to whether the article currently meets the GA criteria? Geometry guy 08:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I had a quick look at the article with a view to an early close, but immediately ran into points of concern. First, the lead is rather short and fails to summarize the article. Second, there do seem to be some neutrality and sourcing issues. In particular, the article relies heavily on "The John McCain Report", an Arizona Republic article by Dan Nowicki and Bill Muller, referring to it for matters of opinion and controversial statements. What makes this such a reliable source?
 * It seems to me that it is cheap journalism, an opinion piece, and a tertiary source which mostly relies on other work, including McCain's own books, for its information. I'm not convinced it is used fairly either: here's the first example I found. From the article: "There, he was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, and stood up for people who were being bullied." From the source:


 * It seems to me that a heavily dramatized isolated incident is sourcing a generic claim. This is not the only such example I found.
 * My eyebrows also raise when I read sentences such as "He survived two airplane crashes and a collision with power lines." Well, we know he survived because he's still alive, so why say it like this: divine providence perhaps? Who was flying those planes? I assume it was McCain, in which case I would expect to read "He crashed two airplanes and flew one into power lines." Notice that this reads completely differently from the point of view of neutrality!
 * I'm against closing this GAR as "keep" while issues like this can be found so easily. I hope they can be fixed. Geometry guy 08:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Geometry guy, thanks for your comments.
 * I agree with you that the lead could use some expansion, although I don't think it fails any of WP:WIAGA.
 * Regarding the Arizona Republic bio series, yes it's largely a tertiary source that recaps other biographies and newspaper articles (although some of what it recaps, these guys wrote originally in the same paper). But I disagree as to its quality; the Arizona Republic is a respected, mainstream newspaper, akin to the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, etc., and historically it has been more adversarial towards McCain than the national press has.  I think it's a good series and that it fairly recaps the material it's presenting (pretty much all of which I've read).  It also has the advantage of being freely available online.  If necessary, though, almost everything in it could be swapped out for the article's sources.
 * Regarding the specific Naval Academy incident, I think our Early life and military career of John McCain article represents this better: "He did not take well to those of higher rank arbitrarily wielding power over him – "It was bullshit, and I resented the hell out of it"[30] – and would sometimes intervene when he saw it being done to others.[10]" The Naval Academy period is hard to summarize in as little length as it's given here in the main article, but I agree that the "and stood up for people who were being bullied" statement is too broad (there would be many times that he didn't).  I don't have good alternative wording at the moment though.
 * Regarding the plane crashes, again Early life and military career of John McCain goes into much more detail on them and McCain's flying abilities at the time. Lacking McCain's full naval military record, we don't really know whether these incidents were his fault or not.  But I've changed it to "He was involved in ..."; hopefully that will sound more neutral to you.
 * As for the other problems you easily see, alas you have to list them out, as by definition we haven't recognized them. And thanks again for the comments.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for the comments. A sentence that Geometry Guy focussed on was: "(1) There, he was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, and (2) stood up for people who were being bullied."  This really has two parts, so I've numbered them here.  Geometry Guy, I don't think you have explained why there is a problem with (1).  The sub-article that we're trying to summarize says stuff like: "Despite his low standing, he was popular and a leader among his fellow midshipmen, in what biographer Robert Timberg called a 'manic, intuitive, highly idiosyncratic way'.[30] ....he was famed for organizing off-Yard activities...."  And the reference is to Timberg, The Nightingale's Song, pp. 31–35.  So, if you really object to this, please explain why.  Likewise, for (2), I'm not convinced there's really a problem.  You say that the cited source is "cheap journalism, an opinion piece."  But I don't see that you've provided any grounds for that statement.  According to Dean Christopher Callahan of the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University, Bill Muller "was a reporter who upheld the highest standards of accuracy, thoroughness and thoughtfulness. Plus, he was just plain fun to read.  We are proud to work with the Republic to establish this scholarship in his name."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Cultural and political image" section of John McCain is problematic. Image from the POV of whom? The US corporate media? The McCain campaign? The Arizona corportate media? The international corporate media? The Obama campaign? While a section of McCain's character might belong in Wikipedia, a section on his image from a particular POV certainly does not belong in Wikipedia.--Dr.enh (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist GA until POV changed to NPOV. My apologies if my call for this Good article reassessment did not follow the correct procedure. (I found the procedure itself to be confusing, but that is another conversation). The John McCain is POV is several ways, and most of the POV biases are listed at.
 * John McCain is a maverick.
 * John McCain is a moderate.
 * John McCain is a straight-talker.
 * John McCain is a reformer.
 * John McCain doesn't do things just because they're politically expedient.
 * Just about all you need to know about
 * John McCain's character is that he showed courage as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
 * John McCain has too much integrity to use his war record to his political advantage.
 * John McCain is the lobbyist's biggest enemy.
 * The media honeymoon with John McCain is over.
 * John McCain has considerable foreign policy expertise.

More POV: The section "Political positions" re: economy. See the "Budget, taxes, and deficit" section of Political positions of John McCain for NPOV text.--Dr.enh (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

More POV: the sentence "McCain is also opposed to extravagant salaries and severance deals of corporate CEOs" does not belong in the in the "Political positions" section, because it is not a political position of McCain (CEO salary is not within govt purview)., Moreover, the sentence promotes the POV that
 * John McCain is a maverick.
 * John McCain is a moderate.
 * John McCain is a reformer.

RealClearPolitics (an opinion website) is POV, and should not be cited as a source.

--Dr.enh (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For starters, I'd suggest you just only list what you object to in this article, not what you object to in the general media coverage. For example, this article doesn't say John McCain is a moderate.  The word "moderate" is never used in this article.  In fact, the article presents a nice chart of ACU/ADA ratings which shows he's not a moderate.  The same applies for most of your long bullet list above.  The article never says McCain "has too much integrity to use his war record to his political advantage", the article never says he "is the lobbyist's biggest enemy", the article never says McCain "has considerable foreign policy expertise", and so on.  And some of the points in that long bullet list are incoherent ("Just about all you need to know about"?).  So why don't you just refer specifically to things that are in the article, not strawmen.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the corporate CEO pay bit, it seems like McCain is proposing a new SEC regulation (or somesuch) regarding shareholder approval of CEO pay packages, so it is under government purview. Is this important enough to warrant inclusion here in the main article?  Hard to say.  But the word for this kind of proposal is "populist", not the three you give.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding Real Clear Politics, it's just used to id a columnist who gives the "conservative but not a conservative" observation. Do you really dispute this observation?  If so, I suggest you go back and listen to any conservative talk radio host during the SC and FL primaries (and some still now), who were frothing at the mouth and going bug eyed with their McCain disdain.  If you don't think immigration and Gang of 14 and closing Gitmo and campaign finance reform and climate change and whatnot gets these folks worked up, you ain't been listening.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding budget/taxes/deficit, I'll let Ferrylodge speak to that.


 * Regarding "Cultural and political image", if you look at the Cultural and political image of John McCain, you can see the areas that that article addresses; it handles multiple points of view, including McCain critics such as Matt Welch. I feel strongly that Wikipedia's treatment of McCain would be grossly incomplete without that article existing.  So this section in the main article is trying to summarize that.  As I've said on the main article talk page, this summarization is inherently difficult, as it is often the details in that article that are telling, and you lose the details when you summarize.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding budget/taxes/deficit, Dr.enh says: "More POV: The section 'Political positions'; re: economy. See the 'Budget, taxes, and deficit' section of Political positions of John McCain for NPOV text." It's good that Dr.enh is seeking to compare what's in the main John McCain article with what's in the Political positions of John McCain sub-article.  After all, the former is supposed to be consistent with the latter.  So let's compare, shall we?


 * The main John McCain article says: "On the economy, McCain would make the Bush tax cuts permanent instead of letting them expire, he would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax so as to assist the middle-class, he would double the personal exemption for dependents, reduce the corporate tax rate, and offer a new research and development tax credit."


 * The Political positions of John McCain sub-article says: "In summary, McCain would make the Bush tax cuts permanent instead of letting them expire, he would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax in order to assist the middle-class, he would double the personal exemption for dependents, reduce the corporate tax rate, and offer a new research and development tax credit.[54]"


 * So, I'm kind of mystified by why Dr.enh thinks the latter excerpt is NPOV, whereas the former is POV. But, then again, I'm mystified by a lot of what has been said and done recently.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - while I have not read the article in full myself, let me summarize: I believe that if someone wishes a page to be delisted, the onus is on that person to explain why. However, the reasoning provided by Dr.enh above is entirely awful. He cites a left-wing think tank to explain "media myths" about McCain, and yet most of those "myths" aren't even in this article anyway. With all due respect to Dr.enh, this appears to simply come down to a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it doesn't say enough bad stuff about him. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The delist was poorly done and may well be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it has been overturned already (the article remains listed). The article was brought to GAR by Wasted Time R not by Dr.enh. At GAR we are obliged to assess articles brought here according to the criteria, and not according to the reasons they were brought here. If GAR keeps an article that does not meet the criteria because the grounds were spurious, then it is (on a much smaller scale!) acting like the Supreme Court tolerating a breech of the first amendment because the charge that the fifth amendment had been breeched was incorrect!
 * Uhh, just to repeat for the record, the only reason I brought the article to GAR is because as I read the (confusing as hell) instructions, it was the only way to overturn Dr.enh's unilateral action. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The instructions are going to be revised soon, but you were right to bring the article here. I just wanted to draw attention to this for the sake of those who state "Keep. Bad faith nomination", when in fact your nomination was in perfectly good faith! Geometry guy 22:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence, comments here which are not based on the criteria will be disregarded, while those which address the criteria are most welcome. I encourage you to read the article in full and add your view. :-) Geometry guy 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (continued). Thanks to Wasted Time R and Ferrylodge for helpful replies (and a couple of fixes to the article). I'm sorry I didn't have time to read the spinout article on McCain's early life before: I've looked at it now, and I agree that it handles the issues raised in a much better way. However, the fact that a spinout has good sources does not mean that we should tolerate poor sources in a summary section.
 * I am sure that the Arizona Republic is a fine newspaper, but this particular bio, as Wasted Time R puts it, is "largely a tertiary source that recaps other biographies and newspaper articles". I appreciate that it is not pro-McCain: I can see that it contains a great deal of criticism of McCain's character and integrity. It isn't anti-McCain either, but that doesn't mean it is neutral and unopinionated, hence reliable! This isn't Goldilocks and the three bears!!
 * On the contrary, it is full of opinion and interpretation. I provided the evidence of its nature already in one quote: just read it. There you will see an event from 50 years prior to the article described in colourful present tense language, such as "McCain can take no more", "McCain blurts out", "There is a moment of silent shock at the table", "The firstie saw the look in McCain's eyes. And fled."
 * This is not journalism; it is theatre. Even the punctuation gives it away.
 * There are other passages in the article with a similar flavour, which I'd be happy to quote if this one example is not convincing enough.
 * Let me be clear. I am not against using this source to support uncontroversial facts. I am not against it being used to illustrate opinions, as long as the article states, "According to the Arizona Republic,..." or something similar. I am not against it being used to provide a second source (available on line) for material where a more reliable source is also provided. However, this tertiary biography is not suitable as the only source for any material which requires a reliable secondary source according to the good article criteria. At FAC, you will have even more trouble. Each reference will have to be tracked back to its original source, just as the "friend and leader" reference has now been sourced to [Timberg, The Nightingale's Song, pp. 31–35]. If the track back is a book of John McCain, you need to rethink!
 * Here's another example to demonstrate that this is not an isolated incident. From the article: "During this period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, the McCains' marriage began to falter..." This is all prior to the 1979 start of his relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley. So what does the source say?
 * In 1979, John McCain came face to face with his future.
 * He was in Hawaii, attending a military reception. While there, he met a young, blond former cheerleader from Phoenix named Cindy Hensley.
 * In other words, the allegation of multiple affairs is unsourced, contrary to WP:BLP.
 * I insist that the lead fails WP:LEAD, which is a GA requirement. It has nothing on his personal life, for example. Finally, let me remark that reading the early history spinout made it clear to me that McCain was the pilot during the three accidents mentioned. The article still glosses over this.
 * I know that the editors involved are experts at maintaining stability and neutral point of view in articles such as this. You need to sharpen up your act on this one. Geometry guy 22:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried again on the early crashes bit, see what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "During this period in Florida ..." bit had the wrong cite, it should have been Timberg not AZ. Have fixed.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WTR, it wasn't a wrong cite. Here is the cite that you say was wrong.  It says: "Their marriage began disintegrating while McCain was stationed in Jacksonville. McCain has admitted to having extramarital affairs."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying: that still isn't quite the same thing as saying McCain had extramarital affairs before 1979. No doubt he did, but we need sources which make that explicit in order to say it. Geometry guy 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind having additional refs, but I think you're plainly incorrect. McCain was only in Jacksonville years before 1979.


 * Additionally, Geometry Guy, you cite stuff like the following from the Muller/Nowicki profile: "McCain can take no more", "McCain blurts out", "There is a moment of silent shock at the table", "The firstie saw the look in McCain's eyes. And fled." As you know, none of this is included in this John McCain article.  Rather, your point is that such stuff indicates unreliability of Muller/Nowicki.  I respectfully disagree.  Such material is standard fare in biographies.  Nowicki/Muller aren't purporting to be writing a news report, but rather were purporting to write a multi-chapter profile.


 * Muller/Nowicki is a combination of a tertiary and secondary source. Even if it were a pure tertiary source, that's not necessarily any problem at all.  "Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others.".Ferrylodge (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not plainly incorrect: your information only confirms that McCain's marriage was falling apart before 1979; the admission of extramarital affairs is a separate sentence with no date attached &mdash; sometimes affairs happen after a marriage goes wrong rather than before (call me naive :). Anyway, no big deal: I just want to be sure explicit claims are supported by explicit sources, not implicit ones.
 * I agree that Nowicki/Muller are not claiming to write anything other than their own profile of McCain for the stimulation of their readers' interest, and I have no criticism of their article from that point of view: it is an entertaining read and presents an interesting point of view on the subject. I also agree that tertiary sources can be helpful. None of this is any reason to assert matters of opinion as fact without providing reliable secondary sources. Every use of Nowicki/Muller needs to be checked if you want a chance at FAC. That's just friendly advice :-) Geometry guy 00:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You say that it's wrong to "assert matters of opinion as fact without providing reliable secondary sources."  But isn't it always wrong to assert matters of opinion as fact, regardless of what source does it?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends what is meant by "matters of opinion". If reliable secondary sources generally concur that "he was a friend and leader for many of his classmates", then the article can state this by citing one such source, even though this is, in principle, a statement of opinion. If there is disagreement in the sources about this view, then the article instead needs to say instead "According to X, he was a great friend and leader..., but according to Y, he irritated the hell out of his classmates by his arrogance" with cites to sources for both views. Okay I'm exaggerating for effect, but I'm sure you get the idea. Geometry guy 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I'm more confused. Are you saying that the statement that "he was a friend and leader for many of his classmates" is not adequately sourced?  It's sourced to Timberg, Nightingale's Song, 31–35.  What's wrong with that?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing. I'm giving it as an example of a statement of opinion which is generally agreed and which is therefore (now) reliably sourced. Geometry guy 07:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (walkaway ec) As for the Arizona Republic series, it's written to be interesting and lively (what you consider theatrics). McCain's not a stuffed shirt, he's a guy who has enjoyed life in its various dimensions, and a bio of him thus leads itself to a certain kind of treatment.  And there's plenty of decent journalistic styles that go beyond the 5 W's basics.  We can if necessary swap all the cites to it out of the article (having it be a second source like you propose will just drive up the footnote size and article load time to no useful purpose), but I'd like to see if other editors also share the objection to using it.    Wasted Time R (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Multiple cites to the same footnote won't drive up the size, so where appropriate and necessary, page ranges to other biographies could be used in addition to the cites to the pages of the AR series. Geometry guy 00:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Geometry Guy also said that the lead fails WP:Lead because, for example, it doesn't say anything about McCain's personal life. But the lead in the Barack Obama article doesn't mention his personal life.  Is it supposed to?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead has to summarize the significant points in the article: usually e.g., marriages and children are regarded as significant in a biography. I'm pretty sure Barack Obama should not be a featured article, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Geometry guy 00:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. MOSBIO gives the following example to follow for the opening of a Wikipedia biographical article: Francesco Petrarca.  Check it out.  That lead says nothing about his family, but the body of the article does give info about his family.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your respect, but if you are so respectful, why not read WP:LEAD? I checked out your example, and it is used to illustrate a good opening sentence in a section on the opening paragraph. As a lead, it is crap: with just one short paragraph, it fails to mention his prolific letter writing, his travels, his children, his bequest, or "Laura". Geometry guy 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I address this stuff below.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I've started beefing up the lead, both with material that used to be in the lead (personal life, maverick, for example) as well as some new material (Vietnam relations, Iraq, for example). Of course, some of these additions are Trouble Magnets ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Good luck with those. I half-suspect that this is one of the reasons the lead is a bit erm, unspecific? :-) Geometry guy 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see MOSBIO. The lead paragraphs should say what the person did, and why the person is significant.  Discussing his marriages is not appropriate or necessary, given the already long length of the lead.  Next thing will be pressure to include extramarital affairs in the lead paragraphs.  Likewise, discussing his ancestry or parentage is not appropriate either; if his father was a gigolo or an assassin, would you insist on including that too?  That stuff can come later in the article.  The lead should be about McCain and why he's significant, not about other people.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is not long, it is too short: the article is 120K for goodness sake. The link you cite concerns the opening paragraph, not the lead section. Please stop creating straw men. Material should only be added to the lead if it is significant in the body of the article. I believe the editors of this article are perfectly capable of making that distinction. Geometry guy 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Geometry guy said "the lead is rather short and fails to summarize the article." I was trying to respond to that. Much of McCain's story revolves around his naval heritage; I've always thought that should be in the lead. Gg also said the lead lacked information about McCain's personal life. Some leads have this, some don't. In practice, there are as many opinions about what should be in the lead as there are editors on an article. Go ahead and revert out all that I put in. Lead battles are an even bigger sink hole of effort than everything else. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is challenging writing a good lead, but it helps to have a good body for the article, and then to summarize it as an exercise in precis. Geometry guy 00:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Geometry Guy, this article previously went through featured article review. The main gripe was that it was too long.  So, we went to a lot of time and effort carefully cutting stuff out that wasn't most notable, and I am trying not to get onto the slippery slope back to a bloated article.  The length of this lead is pushing the upper limit.  WP:Lead says three or four paragraphs max, and we've now got four paragraphs, some of which are huge and should probably be split.  The lead is for what is most notable about the subject.  That he was divorced, or the number of kids he has, is not most notable, and has nothing to do with why this subject is significant.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is 118,418 bytes; the lead is 1872 bytes. The lead is not the problem, and is a long way from any upper limit. None of the paragraphs are huge: they just look big because of the wide lead image. Geometry guy 01:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article's lead is not too long. In fact, that of Ronald Reagan, a featured article, is slightly longer. The image is large as a means of consistency between a number of American political biographies, including Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bob Dole, Strom Thurmond, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, etc. And the article itself is not measured by how many 'bytes' it is, rather it is measured by readable prose. This article's readable prose size is 41 kb, well within guidelines. Happyme22 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My main problem re. the lead is not its length, but rather what belongs in it. WP:Lead says that the "most notable" things about the subject should go in it.  Details about his personal life are not among the most notable things about him.  In the spirit of compromise, I guess we can include the occupation of his paternal grandfather, if people insist.  But stuff about the number of kids, or divorce (or extramarital affairs, or fondness fo hiking) do not belong in the lead, IMHO. Look at Ronald Reagan for example.  No discussion in the lead about wives, divorce, kids, or occupation of grandparents.  And I do not think the Reagan article is crap.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like leads to read like little micro-mini-biographies, for readers with very short attention spans who drop off once they see the table of contents. That's my rationale for including the personal life and heritage stuff.  But many will disagree with me.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The lead could be improved by adding details on his personal life. However, I don't think that it's mandatory to include this material in the article's lead in order to retain its GA status. Simply put, it's not quite important enough.  Majoreditor (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, in response to this reassessment, the lede now says that his father and grandfather were admirals, which seems like personal info about McCain that had a major effect on his life. What else would you recommend?  If a person is not particularly notable for anything in their personal life, then how do we pick out non-notable stuff to put in the lede?  I could list lots and lots of Wikipedia biographies that are featured and yet don't mention a word in the lede about the subject's personal life.


 * WP:Lead says that the lead "should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." While the number of kids he has, and the name of his wife, and that kind of stuff may be important to him, they're not very important to us, are they?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I won't go as far as to suggest that no additional detail son his personal life shouldn't be included in the lead. However, I agree with Ferrylodge's overall assessment. Majoreditor (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Just for the heck of it, I looked to see how many featured articles there currently are on political figures.  There are only thirty.  I took a quick look at the first eighteen.  I didn't see anything personal in the ledes for ten of those eighteen: Ban Ki-moon, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Gerald Ford, William Goebel, George F. Kennan, Bob McEwen, Yoweri Museveni, Barack Obama, and Józef Piłsudski.  And for the others, there's not much.  Yasser Arafat merely mentions his final illness. Barthélemy Boganda merely says that “Boganda was born into a family of subsistence farmers, and was adopted and educated by Roman Catholic missionaries.” George Brown, Baron George-Brown merely mentions that he was prone to “excessive drinking.”  Ngô Đình Cẩn was the brother of the Vietnamese president, so personal info in the lede was unavoidable.  Only four of the eighteen had more personal life in the lede than John McCain now has: Wesley Clark has details about his education, Don Dunstan mentions location of birth and education, Emma Goldman mentions her sister, her marriage, and her divorce.  And Thomas Playford IV mentions his political family, and that he grew up on the family farm.  So, to make a long story short, we're probably okay with just mentioning that McCain's father and grandfather were admirals.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nowicki/Muller

 * Refactored comment by Ferrylodge from the middle of above thread.
 * I didn't put the Nowicki/Muller profile into the footnotes of this article. WTR did that, and he evidently spent a huge amount of time and effort doing it.  I don't mean to be giving you a hard time, Geometry Guy, but I just want to see if we can be as clear as possible about what, if anything, really needs to be done differently here.  Various chapters of the Nowicki/Muller biography are cited in the John McCain article, at footnotes 5abcd, 33abcdefg, 55abcdef, 59abcdefghijkl, 83abcd, 100abcdefghijklm, 109abcdefghijklmn, 131abcdefghijkl, 140abcd, 219, 221, and 231.  That's seventy-nine (79) footnotes!  The McCain article currently relies very, very heavily on the Nowicki/Muller biography.  I'm not aware that Nowicki/Muller have been wrong about anything.  I don't see anything less reliable about Nowicki/Muller as compared to any other reputable biography, and the late Bill Muller had a very good reputation for accuracy.  Do you think we'd need to overhaul only for the sake of FAC, or would you make GAR contingent upon it as well?  FAC may be futile anyway due to stability concerns.  And which of the 79 footnotes do you think we'd have to get additional sources for?  Finally, if you wouldn't mind, would you explain why you find Timberg's Nightingale's Song more reliable than the Nowicki/Muller biography?  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you don't mean to give me a hard time, but then you give me a hard time :-). Okay I probably deserve it for using the word "cheap": I wanted to imply inexpensive (using readily available source material), with an emphasis on an entertaining style; I did not mean to imply shoddy or inaccurate. I have no reason to doubt that Bill Muller had a well-justified reputation for accuracy. However, that isn't what reliability in the WP sense primarily means. Our articles are not "correct" or "true", they are verifiable, which means that the reader can check out any controversial assertion made by a Wikipedia article; that is why we cite our sources. However, it isn't much help if the source we cite makes the same assertion without citing its sources.
 * I do not know for sure whether Timberg's Nightingale's Song is a reliable source, as I haven't read it. However, the table of contents suggests it has 20 pages of notes, 17 pages of bibliography and 5 pages of interviews, so I am assuming it does cite its sources (presumption of innocence being a good principle :). From what I read, the book is putting forward an argument, but it is an argument that is largely tangential to the question "who is John McCain?".
 * Much credit to the Muller/Nowicki bio for listing its sources (and thanks for drawing my attention to that), but it doesn't cite them. Further, the article is written for a purpose, to paint a picture, to give Arizona readers an engaging impression who their senator (and now presumed presidential nominee) is. As such it is full of opinion on these questions; that is part of what makes it interesting. (Random example: "Here is a contradiction that probably stumps even McCain.")
 * Anyway, I went through the 79 footnotes just to get an idea how many would benefit from a more reliable (in the technical sense) or an additional source. I base this only on the nature of the material in the article, not on what Muller/Nowicki say. This is just my tentative opinion: experts on the article are much better placed to make such judgements; I am just trying to help focus on the places where there are more likely to be problems. I divide the list into possible GA issues, additional FA issues, quotations, and particular issues which need special comment.
 * 22 possible GA issues: 33f, 59fgi, 100acdfghij, 109gijkm, 131abj, 141ac
 * 5 additional FA issues: 33bc, 59jl, 100k
 * 6 quotations: 55f, 91a, 109b, 131ek, 141d
 * 4 particular issues: 5d (made no effort), 33e (sudden white hair), 55b (celebrity of sorts), 131i (greatest legislative achievement)
 * My own view on the quotations is that Muller/Nowicki is probably good enough for GA, but FA might ask for a more verifiable source. There is a similar issue with election results, where a primary source would help. 5d may be a BLP issue (I wouldn't vote for McCain if he hates math :) so this could be a case where a cite or a quote from McCain himself would be helpful. 33e, 55b and 131i are strong statements in different ways, and strong statements usually require strong sources; however, 55b and 131i could also be clarified and/or toned down. So it is unclear to me what it is best to do with these.
 * I hope that helps. Geometry guy 19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I guess I'll wait and see if WTR or anyone else would like to comment about it.  It seems like, for some things stated in the John McCain Wikipedia article, you would like to see a footnote that precisely refers to something that precisely refers to something....that precisely refers to a firsthand eyewitness account. Ideally, that would be nice, I agree.  As a practical matter, I'm agnostic.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks for the kind remarks. When I comment here, it is to raise issues, not to say what I would like to see. I welcome agreement, but urge all editors to consider what is best for the encyclopedia. Subject to that, I'm agnostic myself. I'm away over the weekend, so that should give others plenty of chance to comment without me chipping in (I think I've said enough already :) Bon courage! Geometry guy 21:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll start looking at this ... but to be honest, I've never heard of a requirement that an WP:RS have inline citing for every claim itself. There aren't many books written that way these days; the best you get are a notes section in the back, sometimes attached to footnotes, sometimes just to pages numbers, sometimes just existing.  I've been part of a bunch of GACs and at least four FACs (including this article at both) and I've never seen this kind of requirement made of the sources.  I guess I've been working on the wrong articles.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it might be useful to seek input at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Let me emphasise that there is no requirement being proposed here! After all, who am I to add such a new requirement? I was simply trying my best to answer Ferrylodge's hard question about why Timberg's Nightingale's Song might be regarded as more reliable than the Nowicki/Muller biography. You must remain true to your own judgement about sources. I have only drawn attention to points where you might want to reconsider the current reliance on Muller/Nowicki as a source. You've been working on precisely the right articles to have the judgement that this requires. Just apply it and it will be fine! Geometry guy 23:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Geometry guy, to be honest you've flagged some of the most well-known facts about McCain, that a dozen different sources could all attest to. 33f, yes he refused the out-of-sequence early repatriation.  It's the most famous thing about his POW stay.  33b, yes he was badly injured in the bailout, landed in a lake, and nearly drowned.  It's another famous thing about his becoming a POW.  33c, yes a mob of angry Vietnamese attacked him once he was pulled from the lake.  Or, 59f, yes he was accused of being a carpetbagger.  Every single account of that election says that, and I've read a dozen by now.  59g, you want a direct cite from the Phoenix Gazette?  Their online archives, even for pay, don't go back before 1999; would mean a trip to a library out there.  59i, you think he didn't win the primary?  His political career would have been over and we wouldn't be here.  59j, yes he easily won the general.  These are Arizona Republic reporters writing this account, they're pretty familiar with Arizona election history!  59l, the re-election in 1984, ditto.  In fact, if we used the primary source for election returns that you seem to want here, other editors might criticize us for OR or something in concluding the race was easy.  Here, we're using a respected secondary source to make that judgement.  These are not controversial points; everybody on earth agrees that, once he got past that first primary in 1982, McCain has had an easy time of it, facing weak or no-name opponents in his Arizona campaigns.  Redoing all these cites would be a ton of work, and again to be honest it seems to me it would be busy work that wouldn't improve the quality or believability of the article one bit.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good news that there are lots of sources available. I'm not asking you to remove any cites to the Muller/Nowicki, only to supplement them where you consider it would be helpful. Geometry guy 08:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And on the more general point, I've looked through WP:RS and WP:SOURCES and the citation style of the source is never mentioned that I can see. Indeed, "university-level textbooks" are ranked high among desirable sources, and they give their references the same way Nowicki-Muller do, if they do at all.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said it was? I hope you are not proposing to that University level textbooks are appropriate sources for this article just because you read it in some guideline? Use your own judgement, and stop wikilawyering. Geometry guy 08:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Above, Geometry Guy said "My own view on the quotations is that Muller/Nowicki is probably good enough for GA, but FA might ask for a more verifiable source." Since this is a GA review, and we all agree Muller/Nowicki is good enough for GA, why are we still discussing it?  If there's a problem as far as the FA guidelines go, let's save that discussion for the next time some glutton for punishment nominates this article for FA. Coemgenus 10:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't want to wikilawyer, so yes I'll stop here. My own judgement is that there's nothing wrong here with the use of Nowicki-Muller and that nothing needs to be done here as part of GAR.  So I'm not going to do anything.  If the GA gets pulled, that's life.  If someone else wants to replace/augment/whatever all the Nowicki-Muller cites, they can.  If I'm going to be a glutton for punishment, I'll bring Early life and military career of John McCain to FAC, not this.  That article also uses Nowicki-Muller (28 times), and if this issue arises there I'll deal with it in that context.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I generaly agree with WTR. However, I do think that Geometry Guy's comments about Nowicki/Muller have been helpful, in the sense that we have now included more info in the John McCain article to establish that Nowicki/Muller is a reliable source.  Especially see the revised footnote 5 of the John McCain article.  That footnote now includes an  external link to bibliographic material used by Nowicki/Muller, and also includes a wikilink to a bio that I just wrote about Bill Muller.  So I think we're in "good" shape now.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) I left this for a few days, and see there has been very little further comment. I am somewhat disappointed by the response of regular article editors, who previously impressed me at the GARs for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps I shouldn't have provided such a long list of possible GA issues with Nowicki-Muller, but should have concentrated on the extreme. The response that none of these examples are GA issues, and that Nowicki-Muller has now been established as a reliable source for anything is nothing short of lazy. So, I'd better do more work myself and give examples. Here are two, from reference 101 (formerly 100).

From the article:
 * McCain made attacking the corrupting influence of large-scale contributions — from corporations, labor unions, other organizations, and wealthy individuals — on American politics his signature issue. Starting in 1994, he worked with Democratic Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform; their McCain-Feingold bill would attempt to put limits on "soft money". McCain and Feingold's efforts were opposed by some of the moneyed interests targeted, by incumbents in both parties, by those who felt spending limits impinged on free political speech, and by those who wanted to lessen the power of what they saw as media bias.

This is entirely sourced to Nowicki/Muller, who have this to say:
 * Most of the political establishment opposed, either explicitly or quietly, their crusade to clean up elections.

The latter is an unsourced sweeping generalization with the NPOV terms "crusade" and "clean up", yet it seems to be the only relevant material, other than matters of fact, which is not sourced to McCain himself. There's another sentence on the "signature issue", but it is little more than a statement.

From the article:
 * He was instrumental in pushing through approval of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which gave the president power to veto individual spending items. It was one of McCain's biggest Senate victories...

According to whom? Well, Nowicki/Muller, who say:
 * To combat the overspending problem, McCain helped push through a presidential line-item veto in 1995, but the courts overturned the law as unconstitutional. The line-item veto would have allowed a president to strike specific spending items in a bill while allowing the rest of the appropriations to become law. It was McCain's first big Senate victory, though ultimately it did not work out.

I'm unimpressed. Geometry guy 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Line Item Veto, I'm not sure what your point is, Geometry guy. The cited source seems to support the statement in this Wikipedia article, right?  And does anyone dispute that both the cited source (as well as the Wikipedia article) are accurately portraying McCain's role with respect to the Line Item Veto?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Instrumental" and "biggest"? Geometry guy 23:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think that he was not instrumental in pushing this through, or that it was not one of his biggest victories? And are you saying that we've misstated what the source says, or that the source is wrong?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you disputing that McCain was instrumental in passing it, and that it was one of his biggest Senate accomplishments up to that time? Still unclear what your objection is.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See below. I don't have the expertise to question these facts, and even if I did, it would be OR. "Instrumental" and "biggest" are superlative statements, which are not in the source, and require a reliable source to support them. Geometry guy 23:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the words "instrumental" and "biggest" from the article. I'm not sure they were unsupported by the source (e.g. if it was his first big victory then it was among his biggest to date), but anyway it's moot now.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And regarding the use by Nowicki/Muller of the word "crusade", I don't think it shows a POV. One of the sources that Nowicki/Muller cited was Paul Alexander's biography, Man of the People: The Life of John McCain, which says: "Soon after the Senate had killed campaign finance reform, McCain launched another crusade that was destined to generate controversy.”  Do you think Alexander had a POV?  Anyway, the word "crusade" isn't in this Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not complaining about NPOV off-wiki: that isn't our business. The issue is reliably sourcing the statements made in the article, or presenting them as opinion where necessary. It sounds like Alexander's biography could be used to fix some of the sourcing issue for this paragraph.
 * On the line-item veto, Alexander says "McCain was working on an issue that was vital to him ... [later] the Senate voted for the line-item veto, a concept McCain had been fighting for for 10 years. After this legislative success, McCain saw his name floated around as a possible running mate for Dole."  This just confirms what Nowicki-Muller are saying, no?  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See below. I have no deep knowledge here. If other sources confirm Nowicki-Muller on issues such as this, then cite them! Geometry guy 23:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you now see that doing nothing is not an option, and that I am just a tad disappointed that the entire list of my suggested issues was dismissed. That isn't the good judgement I expected from the editors working on this article. Geometry guy 23:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't see. Are you saying that the Wikipedia McCain article is going beyond what the cited source (Nowicki/Muller) says about McCain Feingold, or are you saying that Nowicki/Muller is not reliable about McCain Feingold?  If you're saying the latter, then I don't see you pointing to anything incorrect or POV that Nowicki/Muller have said on this subject.  And, if you're saying the former, then I think you are overlooking a considerable amount of material in the cited source (Nowicki/Muller) about McCain-Feingold, such as this:  "Politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, take their incumbency seriously. The Senate duo's battle to enact the new restrictions on political parties' soft money would take seven years. Feingold would become so identified with their McCain-Feingold bill that he still jokes that people think his first name is 'McCain.' 'Soft money' was the insider term for the limitless contributions that special interests such as corporations, labor unions or independently wealthy individuals donated to the political parties. Party officials, in turn, often used the money to bankroll attack ads on each other's candidates. Although the candidates had to abide by 'hard money' restrictions on contributions, the parties did not. The 'soft money' phenomenon evolved over time from a loophole in post-Watergate campaign laws. By the mid-1990s, 'soft money' was saturating federal races."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both, but note that I use "reliable" always in the technical WP sense. I do not mean to imply that Nowicki/Muller are inaccurate or wrong. WP is not about the The TruthTM. Geometry guy 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would help if you'd specify what Wikipedia criterion of reliability is not satisfied by Nowicki/Muller. It's no less verifiable than any info in a school textbook.  This profile of McCain won first place in the Arizona Press Club’s 1999 Awards for the Best Journalism in Arizona in government/politics reporting.  The Arizona Press Club described it as follows: "This story soared above the competitors. This entry was written masterfully and thoroughly. The reporting was excellent as the writer drew from a myriad of sources and materials. No stone was apparently left unturned in providing insight into the real John McCain. This is the story to read for anyone wondering who John McCain is but wanting a fair, unbiased accounting. Particularly impressive was the section on the complicated Keating Five scandal, which is often written about in confusing, hard-to-understand terms. The scandal was portrayed accurately, but the details were not skimped on in making it easy to understand for those unfamiliar with it."Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, you are doing a good job convincing me that this source can be more widely used than my first impression suggested. However, it is mostly tertiary, and it does contain a lot of opinion, even if that opinion is based on good judgement. I emphasise that "reliable" in the WP sense is not the same as "accurate". For instance the award description would also describe an ideal Wikipedia article (e.g. on the Keating Five scandal): but even though the latter would be more thoroughly sourced, we don't admit Wikipedia itself as a reliable source. Hence, however good Nowicki/Muller is, it has to be deployed with due care. Geometry guy 21:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Geometry guy, yes, it will help if you focus on the most egregious (from your perspective) cases. Regarding the McCain-Feingold opposition reasons, Nowicki-Muller doesn't list one that played a major part (free speech concerns), so I've added a cite from Timberg that does. I've also clarified that the free speech concern was tied into a belief among some that the proposed law would be ruled unconstitutional. But I'm not sure what your objection is here: do you think our article is inaccurate in this area? or do you think it is accurate, but that Nowicki-Muller's writing style is too breezy or informal or sweeping to be used as a source? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that cite helps. I'm not questioning the accuracy of the article or Nowicki-Muller. My concern is that statements which contain an element of opinion should either make clear that opinion (and not only fact) is involved, or should cite reliable sources which support the statement concerned. In many cases Nowicki-Muller is okay for this, but in some cases the style of their article doesn't make it reliable enough to back up unqualified opinion.
 * If I have time, I will look for further concrete examples tomorrow, but if you understand where I am coming from and can find some such issues yourselves, that would be much appreciated. Geometry guy 23:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we double- and triple-cite every assessment and evaluation and perspective and conclusion like you want, we'll just run afoul of the editors who complain about articles being less readable due to excessive footnoting. Every single source, including Alexander, Timberg, newspaper articles, etc. could be picked apart by someone looking to criticize writing style, closeness to subject, institutional bias, broad conclusions without laying out all detailed reasoning, etc.  Indeed one of the reasons I leaned on Nowicki-Muller so heavily in the first place is that because it's largely a tertiary source, it pretty much presents the collective/conventional/mainstream wisdom about McCain's life.  And thus I was hoping I could get by without too much multiple citing.  I understand your take on this, and I understand the people who complain about heavy citing, but sometimes us writers get whipsawed in between.  00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Wasted Time R (talk)
 * And sometimes you/they/we find a healthy compromise :-) Actually, I do sympathise: I am also an editor who believes that many articles have too many inlines. For instance, in the discussion of footnote 101 above, it is used multiple times in quick succession to ensure each sentence has a cite. This is probably not necessary (it isn't a GA requirement).
 * By all means use a tertiary source as much as you can to simplify inlines, but be aware of cases where a primary or secondary source is needed as a supplement. Criterion 2b has been developed to minimize inline citation requirements. I have already suggested that a good tertiary source is probably okay for quotations; it is also probably okay for attributed opinion. But I wouldn't want to admit such a source for stated opinion, statistics, and counter-intuitive or controversial material (especially contentious material relating to living persons). The article does very well in this respect, but I believe it is worth checking whether the examples I have listed can be done better. Geometry guy 21:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In my experience the "one footnote at the end covers all sentences in a paragraph" model doesn't last long on articles like this; people quickly bang tags on all the other sentences.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, that is not the approach I would take: instead I would focus on those sentences which are most likely to be challenged, or most need citation for other reasons. If a less controversial sentence is surrounded by more controversial ones with the same citation, then it may survive fact bombing. Geometry guy 10:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) Sorry to jump in so late to the discussion; I'm still catching up. Wow, did I accidentally get routed to FAC? :) I'm glad to see that issues with note 101 are resolved. I was shocked by G-guy's example, particularly for the Line Item Veto. I'm going to check some of the footnotes for myself to see if there are any other similar misattributions. In a perfect world the article wouldn't utilize Nowicki/Muller to the extent it has; that said, it's by and large reliable enough for GA standards. FA is a different matter. I'll check back later after I dive into the citations. Majoreditor (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep. Belatedly, here are three examples from footnote 111 (formerly 109) which read as stated (rather than attributed) opinion.
 * A variety of interest groups that McCain had challenged in the past ran negative ads.
 * An unidentified party began a semi-underground smear campaign against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, and flyers.
 * ...because Bush mobilized the state's evangelical voters...
 * The second of these is perhaps not so problematic, as the following sentence provides details. I've no doubt these statements are widely accepted, and don't need to be attributed, but they would benefit from additional sources. Anyway, with this done, and unless Majoreditor spots any other issues, I'm inclined to agree with him that the article is now by and large reliable enough for GA, and that this GAR can be closed. Geometry guy 10:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a second cite (using Barone's almanac account) on the third point. Will work on the others.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done the other two as well, using Alexander (who has the most extensive coverage of SC 2000 of anyone) in both cases. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The six citations I've checked -- admittedly, a small sample -- were fine. I'm still worried that there may be statements in the article which aren't supported by the actual statememnts in the cited references, as previously demonstrated. However, that's not cause for de-listing. Majoreditor (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)