Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Glenn/archive1


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

John Glenn

 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because extensive expansions and improvements have been made since his death. Being an American icon and a famous astronaut, it would be very good for this article to reach A-class status. Kees08 (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Hi Kees, welcome to A-class. I see you've gotten a good start getting several articles through GAN, and you've done a lot of admirable work on this article. It can be tough getting long articles with hundreds of editors through the review process, in part because it can be hard to find and verify the information in the article. But I agree that it's worth taking a shot at getting this important article through A-class and eventually WP:FAC, if possible. I'll be happy to help with copyediting, but it's too early for that. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is good to hear, thank you. GOCE recently took a run at copy editing, and the only substantial amount of content added since then is in his political career section. Not to say the other sections cannot be improved still! I am hoping to get this and a couple others in the near future through, so it will be good to see how far away I was initially from A-class. Kees08 (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Citation formatting is currently pretty uneven. As a general rule, similar citations should look similar, and citations should include sufficient information to clearly identify the source even without a URL. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I have been working to address this comment. I believe the biggest elephant remaining in the room is the book citations, and I will try to take care of those in the next couple of days. Kees08 (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the book citations are now the same, and I expanded several others. Were there any other major, overarching problems with the citations? Kees08 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're italicizing a lot of things that shouldn't be. I'm also still seeing a lot of inconsistencies - some books include locations and others don't, some newspapers include publisher and others don't (it's not necessary), several web sources include only title and URL, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am working on these comments, do you have examples of what should not be italicized? Kees08 (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * School names or NASA. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In those cases, they are the publisher and should be italicized. In general they are not, but when they are the publisher they are. Still working on the other comments. Kees08 (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, publisher names should not be italicized. Italics are for work titles - books, journals, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not mean to be daft, and the CS1 templates are not gospel, but the templates automatically italicize website names. Can you provide me any documentation saying that I am wrong, and that in general it looks like the template is wrong? Kees08 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Er... produces,  produces , etc.  You are correct that website names are typically italicized, but website names and publishers are not the same thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And the two were totally jumbled in the article. I made two passes over the references, making them consistent at least. I've also added access dates where they were missing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I will take a look as well. I still do not really understand the difference between the website and publisher fields. When would I use the website field? Just want to know for future articles. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My rules of thumb are: (1) use it only on cite web; (2) use it if and only if you can't figure out who the publisher is; (3) It has to be a domain name, and not an organisation.  Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that a more experienced A-class article creater has gone through it, are there any more specific reference concerns? I would be happy to address them. Kees08 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * We need sources for the Awards and honours. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Was not really sure on the last one, I could not find a citation for what was there, but I found information on the astronaut badge. Kees08 (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, do you have any additional comments? Let me know thanks!  Kees08  (Talk)   17:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, nice work so far. I took a quick run through and have the following points: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "and was raised in nearby New Concord with his adopted sister Jean. He attended New Concord..." seems a bit of a run on sentence. I'd suggest maybe splitting the sentence here. Something such as this might work: "He was raised in nearby New Concord[4] with his adopted sister Jean, and attended..."
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "He was re-posted to NAS Corpus Christi, first as a student...": what was the course he undertook here?
 * ✅ It was at the Naval School of All-Weather Flight. Added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "COLONEL JOHN H. GLENN, JR., USMC(RETIRED)": probably should be decapitalised per MOS:ALLCAPS
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Glenn shot down his first MiG-15s in a dogfight on July 12, 1953": did he shoot down one, or several? Is it possible to provide a total?
 * ✅ Only one. For a total of three. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "part of NASA research": include the full name of the organisation here, and move the link from the later section to here;
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * watch out for overlink. I suggest using the User:Ucucha/duplinks script
 * ✅ Weeded them out.
 * this needs a ref: "Metzenbaum ran again in 1976 against the incumbent, Taft, winning a close race on Jimmy Carter's coattails."
 * ✅ Done!
 * "Results of 1992 election for Senator": I wonder if the caption should include some clarification of what the red and blue means, as it doesn't appear to be mentioned in the body (I might have missed it though)
 * ✅ The article discussed the election, but did not talk about what colors represented who.
 * "Clinton sent the email from the home of a friend in Arkansas using a Toshiba Satellite laptop computer that belonged to White House physician Robert Darling.": is it really necessary to include the details of the laptop here?
 * Laptops were more rare in that time, and it was a first. I am not married to keeping the type of laptop there, but I do not think it hurts. If you think it should go I will remove it.  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * "...a favor granted by president Bill Clinton", probably just Clinton here (I would suggest moving the president's full name to the first mention)
 * ✅ Agreed  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * per WP:DASH, this should be an unspaced emdash (or a spaced endash): "other things — heart"
 * ✅ Yup  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * stopping now, will try to come back later to review the rest of the article, after you have had a chance to look at these comments. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Roger that, addressed the rest of them. I will be a bit busy this weekend and next week, but will try really hard to find additional time to address more comments that you have, if you have time for more. Thanks!  Kees08  (Talk)   05:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, your changes, and Hawkeye's, look good. Continuing review below (looking at images). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Never called to duty...": do we know why?
 * No. The Air Corps was deluged with applicants in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, and there was considerable expansion of the facilities to enable 30,000 pilots to be trained, which were not all completed until June 1942. It seems certain that his enlistment in the Navy was reported to the Air Corps. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "File:John Glenn Low Res.jpg": the source link is dead, can it be replaced perhaps? Also, is there a date that could be added to the image description page?
 * ✅ Replaced with the astronaut image that was in the infobox. I could not find a working source.  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * "File:Colonel John Glenn official photo.jpg": as above
 * ✅ Replaced with a photo of him in a jet, since i could not find a working source.  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * "File:F-86 'MiG Mad Marine'.jpg": source link appears to be dead
 * ✅  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * "File:Astronaut John Glenn being Honored - GPN-2000-000607.jpg": as above
 * Replaced w/ working link.  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * "File:GPN-2000-001027.jpg": source link appears to no longer be current
 * ✅ Well that was harder than it should have been to find. I did find out that NASA Commons on Flickr and NASA Images on The Internet Archive are both valid NASA published sources, so the rest should be a lot easier.  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * "File:Defense.gov News Photo 000519-D-9880W-201 (cropped1).jpg": source link doesn't seem to point specifically at the source of the image
 * ✅ This photo did not really even make sense to be in the article, especially since you could barely see Glenn in it. I replaced it with a more relevant photo for the section  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * "File:John Glenn receiving Presidential Medal of Freedom.jpg": source link is dead
 * ✅ I replaced it with an equivalent photo that has a working external link.  Kees08  (Talk)  

I believe I have addressed all of your comments, let me know when you complete the next round of review!  Kees08  (Talk)   04:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, sorry for the delay, I had to go out of town for work last week. Anyway, I've taken another look and am happy the changes that have occured. I have added my support, but have a couple more points below: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "File:GlennSchool.jpg" possibly needs a "FoP-US" template as well as the current licence;
 * Looks like the building was constructed in 1903, so do not need the template, correct?  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * this is a non-sentence: "flying an F8U Crusader 2,445 miles (3,935 km) from Los Alamitos, California to Floyd Bennett Field in New York City in under  3 1⁄2 hours";
 * ✅ Nice catch, thanks.  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * "backup pilot for Shepard and Grissom": suggest full names and links for Shepard and Grissom here in the prose as they are only mentioned in a footnote elsewhere;
 * ✅ Wikilinked them too, since this is first mention  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * "...on aging by sending more older people into space" --> "...on aging by sending more elderly people into space"?
 * ✅ I agree, it was a little clunky.  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * Thank you for your efforts with this article. Good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review and for my first A-class support vote. If you have any other issues with the article, feel free to bring them up. Thanks again!  Kees08  (Talk)   00:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Co-ordinator comment: unless there are further reviews forthcoming on this article fairly soon we are probably going to need to close this review as "no-consensus" to promote at this time. ACR procedure is generally for reviews to be open for 28 days (although we now regularly allow reviews to remain open longer than this due to the limited number of editors available to review articles these days). Unfortunately though this review has now been open more than four months, and despite the efforts of the nominator and those who have reviewed it so far it has to date only received one support (with the usual minimum standard being three). I'll hold off on closing this until tomorrow in case someone is prepared to offer a last minute review but my intent is to close this at that time absent any objections. Anotherclown (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging you all per the comment above. I figured this was coming soon, not a big deal. If any of you have time to add additional comments I would appreciate it, otherwise I will probably end up taking it straight to FAC. Same goes for my Roger Chaffee nomination. I understand these articles are only tangentially related to MILHIST, so the interest in reviewing may not be there. Cheers!  Kees08  (Talk)   07:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've closed this review now, just waiting for the bot to finalise everything. For what its worth this article looks in fairly good shape to me. All the best at FAC. Anotherclown (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.