Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. McCain Sr.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Article promoted by Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

John S. McCain Sr.

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

John S. McCain Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The World War II admiral of Guadalcanal fame. "Slew" McCain and his son "Junior" McCain were the first father and son to become four-star admirals in the US Navy, although Slew's promotion was posthumous. (In fact, the only ever posthumous promotion to that rank.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

This ACR seems malformed - the usual headings aren't in place.

This is a problem with our Template:WikiProject Military history. See Template talk:WikiProject Military history#A class preload boilerplate for deatils. MSGJ (talk · contribs) is working on it. In the meantime, I have added them manually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to offer the following comments focused on the World War II section, with the proviso that I'm going to be travelling without Wikipedia access for a month starting next week.

I only just got back from Poland and Paris. Have a great time! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D, any further comments to come from your end? If not, could we have your vote, now that you're back from your break? Matarisvan (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Anything more to add? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to do a full review and vote here, but can do so over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've read the rest of the article, and have only a single further comment:

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

  • In the infobox, when we already have we listed John S. McCain Jr. in the Children label, why have we listed Jr. again as Sr.'s son in the Relatives label?
    checkY I don't know; another editor added it. Changed to "3" per Template:Infobox person. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that caused destruction of": might "that caused the destruction of" be better?
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "report to the armored cruiser USS Pennsylvania on the West Coast": do we know where exactly on the West Coast?
    I have checked three different sources and all they say is "on the Pacific coast". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "escorting shipping": "ships" instead of "shipping"?
    "shipping" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCain left the San Diego on 26 May 1918": Do we know why?
    checkY For a new assignment. Changed wording to make this clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to U-boat on first mention in the Early career and World War I section?
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consisted of VF-4...": perhaps we could rephrase this to clarify that these were squadrons? I had to click on the VB-4 link to confirm they were.
    checkY Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "could be released from 200 to 300 feet": What was the earlier range of the Mark 13s?
    checkY Clarified that this refers to altitude, not range. It had a maximum range of 6,300x. ("Mk XIII Aerial Torpedo". National Museum of the United States Air Force. Retrieved 16 October 2024.) Is this worth adding? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce and link Knox and Halsey on first mention instead of second?
    checkY Already linked on first mention. Unlinked on second. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "completion of a new airfield on Espiritu Santo": Are any dates available for this completion? Also, wouldn't "construction" be better than "completion", since this was a new airfield and not a brownfield one?
    checkY The wording emphasises that McCain pressed to get it ready in time. The construction of the airfield without engineer units was a saga in its own right. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "revictualing": Gloss as "loading supplies", perhaps in brackets, for those not familiar with military terminology?
    checkY Linked to the wiktionary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my support, all the issues I had raised have been addressed. Matarisvan (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Source review

[edit]

That was all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, I will be doing 12 spot checks, ~10% of the total refs. Here go the spot checks:
  • Ref #19: all 19 pages of the source being cited to support McCain's work at the Bureau of Navigation seems excessive. I think 1-3 pages would be enough, no?
  • Ref #20: ok.
  • Refs #23 and #25: I think citing all the pages of the sources is not necessary. We could just cite the sources without adding page numbers for these two refs, and the first one in this list.
  • Ref #45: ok.
  • Refs #62 and #63: ok.
  • Ref #106: ok.
  • Refs #107 and #109: dead links, you may have to remove these.
  • Ref #110: ok.
  • Ref #115: ok.
Matarisvan (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have substituted another newspaper for fn 107.
  • fn 109 is a book and is not dead. Do we have the right reference number?
  • 19, 23 and 25 are provided so the reader can look up the original works by McCain. The reader looking for a hard copy will need the page numbers. The text is supported by the secondary reference.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7, I meant ref 108, the Arlington National Cambridge website. The URL doesn't load on both my laptop and phone, and the archive URL also does not work. Matarisvan (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7, the link might not be working outside of the US. Anyway, everything else is good, so the source review is a pass. Matarisvan (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am outside the US. Strange. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I'll review this over the coming week; if I haven't started by Tuesday evening please ping me. Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have access to Frank's work on Guadalcanal, which is considered a fairly definitive treatment of that campaign? Frank notes that there was an awkward command structure to where if Kelly Turner wanted an air search of an area done, he had to get Fletcher to get Ghormley to send the orders to McCain (p. 52) pp. 90-95 then discusses what went wrong with the air search. It seems a bit odd to me to be discussing the report's findings about the defeat without noting exactly what the failure of the air searching was
    I do not have that book. The article refers to the "failure of either carrier or land-based air to conduct effective search and lack of coordination of searches." I presume the latter refers to the command structure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    if you would like, I can try to send you scans of the relevant pages. Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Bureau of Aeronautics section, will resume soon. Hog Farm Talk 00:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "McCain participated in Halsey's decision to keep the combined naval task force on station rather than avoid a major storm, " - this is a bit vague. Was he consulted? Is it known if he supported or opposed the eventual course of action?
    Yes, it is known. Unfortunately, our article is no better than a stub. I will expand on this, but I do not have my books with me, so it will have to wait until next week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY I have rewritten the section on Typhoon Connie. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spruance relieved Halsey and McCain was relieved by Mitscher on 26 January 1945, " - was this a routine shuffling of an officer off combat duty for a spell, or was there something more to this?
    checkY It was the routine changeover from the Fifth Fleet to the Third. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it for my review; Frank doesn't have any different conclusions regarding his handling of the air search than what's currently in the article and the bit of detail from that source isn't necessary. Hog Farm Talk 02:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not completely satisfied with this article. McCain became a national in the early phase of the war when the US was not heavily engaged and the media was looking for heroes to offset a lot of bad news. McCain was lauded as a "fighting admiral" but that was not really his nature; he was more of a success behind a desk. His putting bomb racks on fighters was far-sighted, and his dislike of the SB2C was controversial but well-founded. From the reviews I've read, Frank notes the disappointing performance of the US Navy at Guadalcanal, and McCain has to bear part of the blame for that. The Fifth Fleet/Third Fleet thing seems pretty simple to me and I hope I have explained it clearly enough; but it is also clear that Halsey and McCain was not as good as Spruance and Mitscher and this points to another yet another systemic failure in the Navy's personnel policies. Even the operations of the fast carrier forces during operations in the Philippines and South China Sea from September 1944 to January 1945 do not look that impressive really. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Now that I am back, I have made the requested changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/John_S._McCain_Sr.&oldid=1268940235"