Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Douglas MacArthur/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:45, 11 May 2010 [1].

Douglas MacArthur

Douglas MacArthur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 14:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images There are a number of pictures of US statues in this article, can links be added to these images to the licensing of the 3D artworks from which the images are derived. The author mentioned in File:View_copy.jpg is not named. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? The single statue appears only to be licensed by the photographer, which does not cover the sculptor's derivative copyright. The same can be said for "The Memorial to General MacArthur's Leyte Landing in the Philippines", for which a location should be provided, if only on the image file. Given the very restrictive US rules on public statuary, I'm not sure this is enough, although it would be a shame to lose these images. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I added the tags. This took me by surprise, as in Australia public art may be freely photographed without permission. I fired off an email to the MacArthur Memorial asking about the copyright on the statues but did not receive a reply. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick Comment - I've only looked it through very quickly but it feels a bit overlinked (especially the lead)... Please check which wikilinks are really needed, I mean, who doesn't know what a mutiny is? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't read the article but it surely fails criteria 4 - ie. it is way too long. It is 94 kB (15533 words) (and that doesn't even include stuff in quote templates). I realize that this article is never going to be short, but when articles such as Catholic Church and Donner Party are cut to around 50 kb, it should also be possible to make this shorter. --Harthacnut (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church, 91 kb; Donner Party, 80 kb.--Grahame (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KB is not how prose size is measured: this article is over 15,000 words. Catholic Church is about 6,800 and Donner Party is 9,400. There are many areas where this article can be better summarized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt you are right Sandy, but where does it actually say this? The Criteria & various FA advice pages have very little on the subject, and when they do, seem to refer to only KB, just like Wikipedia:Article size. Links to prose-measuring tools are hard to find too. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Johnbod; I have just now seen this message. Before
WP:SIZE-- historically, KB was measured because older computers couldn't load larger articles-- with faster computers, the focus switched to reader attention span (as well as overall size and load time). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll copy & continue this bit at FAC talk, as it is a general issue. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic Church is a B class article in the process of a major expansion,[1] Donner Party is about a minor and obscure event. The article should be compared with featured articles like John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Donner Party is not a minor and obscure event, and the size of Catholic Church was the subject of a very widely advertised RFC, where it was decided that the size was too long. In addition, this would be the largest FA, period, if it passed. The next is Elvis Presley, and several reviewers complained that they would have opposed if they had read that FAC-- but they didn't. This FAC has the support of almost purely MilHist reviewers: do general readers want to see so much detail that is about the events/battles instead of the man? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure lets compare those. MacArthur is 40% longer than Churchill (11039 words), and MacArthur will, if promoted, be the longest FA. (See User:Dr_pda/Featured_article_statistics)--Harthacnut (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ :The Grand Old Duke of York,
    He had ten thousand men;
    He marched them up to the top of the hill,
    And he marched them down again.
    And when they were up, they were up,
    And when they were down, they were down,
    And when they were only half-way up,
    They were neither up nor down.
Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well as far as I'm concerned, and I'm in the minority, I think people harp on too much about "too long" and if the guy was a giant figure in their field and changed the world, then I'm all for 80 or even 120kb prose articles (especially with titanic politicians and generals who were always doing something, or intriguing etc) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of length was brought up during the article reconstruction. Having an article such as "Military career of" to funnel off some length doesn't make too much sense. MacA was born on an Army installation and died in an Army Hospital. His entire life was the military. In opposite, having an article such as "Personal life of" doesn't do much good either. MacA had no personal life worth an article. Perhaps an "MacA in WWII" might help reduce size but that would in effect carry away the needed context for the reader. I'm not thrilled with the length of this article either but alternatives have been looked at previously and nothing easy and clear has been found. Reducing the amount of text currently in the article will result in a loss of content that I feel is required to completely explain the concept of this guy. --Brad (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Honors and awards" section should be rolled up into prose in the previous section, which is where all the more notable honours are already. I don't think the length is excessive, but that will save a few bytes. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Honors and awards" section was split off into a separate article. Only the summary remains. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the bit I mean! Look at all those section heads for two sentences. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But consolidating will save twelve words at most, much less than will be lost if we have to bring anything back from the subarticles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See
2b, re headings; I can't discern any need for the complex TOC-- they could all be eliminated and consolidated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support - the length is also not a problem for me and is to be expected for a person of such stature and prominence as MacArthur. -MBK004 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I supported this in its recent ACR and I feel it meets the criteria for FA. Length is not an issue for me in this regard, as an article about this subject is always going to be large. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I also reviewed this for its ACR and think that it meets the FA criteria. MacArthur was one of the most important, and complex, military and political figures of the 20th century and I think that the article's length is OK - it's hard to see what could be spun off into its own article and the quality of this article is consistently high. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one random sample of the length issue, consider this paragraph (typical of what is found throughout):
  • On April 21, 1914, President Woodrow Wilson was alerted to a German shipment of weapons for Victoriano Huerta and ordered the U.S. occupation of Veracruz. Secretary of War Lindley Miller Garrison designated Wood to command an expedition to Mexico City in the event that war broke out between the United States and Mexico. Wood handed over the job of Chief of Staff to Major General William Wallace Wotherspoon, and selected a headquarters staff that included MacArthur, who was sent to reconnoiter the Veracruz area. MacArthur arrived at Veracruz on the battleship USS Nebraska on May 1, 1914.[23]
  • A good deal of the text is not about MacArthur, but giving background about the conflicts, and could probably benefit from a better use of linking and summary style. If readers want full history on the U.S. Occupation of Veracruz, they should be able to link out to that article, while reading here only about MacArthur-- the article loses focus on MacArthur which so much text about the events. This FAC needs independent review from non-MilHist editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have trimmed this section. There is no point in undertaking a general reduction effort, as there is no target. Nor is there consensus that the article is too long. Rather, I still have editors asking for more material to be included. There is a summary of the article at the top though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for review from more editors, a couple have been reviewing the article. I have left invitations to comment on their talk pages. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia I copyedited this last night. It's very good, but as a Wikipedia article, it suffers from too much context. I am glad to see some work going into paring out the less important details. Some specific other issues:

  • "MacArthur enthusiastically supported the New Deal by operating the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)." - he did what?
  • "On MacArthur's insistence, the mission was flown anyway by Brigadier General Ralph Royce, the results of the Battle of the Coral Sea made Brett's assessment seem optimistic." - something strange happened to the text here; not sure if these just need to be split or if there are other bits missing.
    • Split it. Did a little re-wording while I'm at it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Incheon" and "Inchon" are each used three times. Please standardize.
    • Every source uses the latter; Wikipedia uses the former. Stadardised on "Incheon".
  • The foreign language terms Légion d'honneur and Croix de guerre are inconsistently italicized. Same with the loanwords kamikaze and en route, which arguably do not need italics. In any case, application should be consistent for each set.
  • Please review image captions for punctuation: only full sentences should end with a full stop.
  • The section called Meuse-Argonne Offensive actually covers the Battle of Saint-Mihiel as well as the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. To make matters more confusing, it uses the alternate name Battle of the Argonne Forest for the latter. Any way to clarify these?
    • Added Battle of Saint-Mihiel to the heading. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since we're favoring Meuse-Argonne Offensive, I've changed the listing in the infobox to match it. Maralia (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the section called Second Battle of the Marne also covers the Champagne-Marne Offensive. Additionally, there is no link to the Second Battle of the Marne article.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding is that this section covers two battles. I questioned its being named for only one battle; you changed the name to refer to the other battle. It should mention both, yes? And it still doesn't link to Second Battle of the Marne. Maralia (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Second Battle of the Marne is the Champagne-Marne Offensive. I've just used this name more consistently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines of those last two issues, I would really like to see {{Main}} links in place under the applicable section headers. With these issues taken care of, and a bit more pruning, I would be happy to support. Maralia (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Main" template is used when this article is a summary of that article-- it's usually not, rather contains some info from that article, and then expands on MacArthur's role, so other templates (See also, Further, etc) might be more appropriate, once
summary style is used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I've struck resolved issues, and made a few replies above. Sandy is of course right about Main not being the ideal template; it should be {{further}}, I would think. Still looking forward to further trimming. Some obvious targets would be extraneous detail (why is it important to note what floors offices were on?) and information better located elsewhere (the details of the changes MacArthur implemented at West Point). Maralia (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Summary of editors commenting so far on length (and overlinking): Harthacnut, Esuzu, Maralia, Ling.Nut, Brad101, and me. Independent (non-MilHist) review is still largely lacking here, and broad consensus should be gained if
    WP:SIZE is to be surpassed by 50% and set a new precedent for FAs. Also, 2b, TOC, should not be overwhelming (e.g.; Awards). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • This edit removed several of my posts ... I will begin reinstating them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's all restored now! (Same thing happened to me once in an edit conflict.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry about this. It has trouble with multiple edit conflicts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take your point but I have no way of obtaining more reviews. :( The article has already had far more editors comment than other FAs I've written. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead does not cover anything from the "Later life" section. Ucucha 03:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency: both "U. S." and "U.S." in lead; "D.C." in lead but "DC" in first section. I was able to make various basic style and MOS fixes in the lead and first section, which suggests that a similar check is needed throughout. Ucucha 03:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Layout problem: the third column of the reference list disappears on my screen because the portal box takes up too much space. Ucucha 03:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several refs seem to be lacking in essential information, like current ref. 307 to "photo here Websites". Ucucha 03:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All refs have been checked and reviewed twice. No problems. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are certainly problems: I gave one example. If the reviews you mention missed that, too bad for them. Ucucha 04:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, they are apparent in these examples:
          • 307.^ photo here Websites, retrieved December 28, 2008
          • 308.^ General Douglas MacArthur (Character) on Internet Movie Database, retrieved February 24, 2010
        • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In fact, there is missing data in citations on many websites, examples:
            • Honours and Awards – Douglas Macarthur, retrieved March 15, 2010
            • General Douglas MacArthur Farewell Address to Congress, retrieved March 13, 2010
          • (Also, Macarthur or MacArthur, consistency?)
          • Citations should specify publisher always, author and date when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Web sites cannot have publishers... all we have is the title and accessdate... Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hawkeye7, it's troubling that you are dismissing reviewer comments without correcting the issues-- I just added a lot of publishers myself,[2] and there is still more to do. I'm also troubled that a MilHist A-class review was passed with missing publishers-- was reliability of sources even checked there? And I'll add that making these small edits on this article is difficult, because the load time is such a problem due to its size (and I've seen no progress on that issue in spite of numerous requests here). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I went through every book in the bibliography. Every one has a publisher. I weeded out all the poor sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Have to concur that the lead is inelegant. The first paragraph seems to be repetitive: the Medal of Honor is repeated twice or thrice in the whole lead depending on if you count the joint mention with his father Arthur who is also mentioned twice in quick order as is General of the Army and field marshal of the Philippines (should that be capitalized?). On the other hand the battles in New Guinea like later life noted by Ucucha aren't mentioned. It seems some sort of style format is being followed and that is why the title General of the Army precedes the subject's name but if it wasn't for that I'd start simply with "Douglas MacArthur was a General of the Army (general of the army?) of the United States and field marshal (Field Marshal?) of the Philippines..." Right afterward maybe "American general" can be replaced with "American commander", "American military leader", or something else that doesn't make the beginning sound repetitive. In comparison, articles on presidents don't start off with their title in front of their name. I might be inclined to present a slightly altered rewrite of the lead but I wouldn't want to upset any established convention being followed by the main contributor so I will just mention it for now. 3 edits. Lambanog (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MOS says that the first sentence should define the subject and state his notability. The problem with MacArthur is that he has an unusually large number of claims to notability because he was:
      1. Awarded his nation's highest award for valour;
      2. Awarded the second-highest award for valour multiple times;
      3. Held the highest rank;
      4. Held the highest post, i.e. Chief of Staff;
      5. Played an important role in multiple significant military events;
      6. Commanded sizeable bodies of troops in combat;
    • So he gets a paragraph which lists his claims to notability. The lead section then breaks into a summary. We have only four paragraphs to work with, so the first covers his early life and the Great War, the second the period between the wars, and the third covers Second World War and Korea. New Guinea gets one sentence. He didn't do anything nearly as significant in later life, which is not unusual.
    • MOS:BIO says that the opening sentence should start with name and title. Hence military biography articles start with a rank. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is because of the abundance of things he is notable for that the repetition of certain things stands out. Is the Medal of Honor such a big deal that it bears repeating over being de facto ruler of post-WWII occupied Japan or being named supreme commander of UN forces in the Korean War? I think it would make the lead stronger if the repetition could be reduced. I'm comparing with the lead for
John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and that might be a good one to look at to help streamline things and put things in a slightly less militaristic perspective. From my civilian view the medals are less important than the roles he had. Enumerating the medals, awards, and ranks achieved might make for a stronger ending lead paragraph. Something like "By the end of his career he had been awarded..." then list all the important distinctions. Lambanog (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose and Speedy close.
    An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie.
    Hawkeye's sympathies are as evident in the article as in the quote at the head of the review.
    • Several not uncontroversial claims are made on the sole authority of MacArthur's memoirs. This would be unacceptable in any article; it is unnecessary and doubly undesirable in a widely-studied figure with a contemporary reputation for vanity.
      • Which claims? It should have been only used for facts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The details of his heroic exploit at Veracruz
        • His coming up with the idea of a Rainbow Division, and wowing the Secretary of War
        • His actions about the Bonus Marchers
        depend solely on his autobiography. (Doubtless there are more.) Are these facts? A man is not at oath in his memoirs.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've removed the MacArthur references and re-sourced from James. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No mention of any of this contemporary or later criticism is made.
      • As per the FAQ, the editors chose to stick with facts and leave out opinions in order to achieve a NPOV. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a poor argument. NPOV consists in neutral presentation. Arguably, the article would not be complete without mentioning public perception, including opinions, of him. Ucucha 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article mentions public perceptions in several places. Count them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Favorable opinions, yes. That's the problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • That is just not true. The article mentions perceptions at West Point for being a general's son; of his eccentric dress; of his handling the Bonus March; of his handling of the campaign in the Philippines; of his handling of the advance on the Philippines; and more Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coverage of MacArthur's firing is tendentious and incomplete.
      • This is mentioned. There is a main article on the Dismissal, so this is just a summary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not say it wasn't mentioned; but is this bare and one-sided mention due weight, either for the event or for its reception? No. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • What do you think it should also cover? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The account of the Occupation of Japan is strikingly incomplete; the change of policy to the right in 1949 [is omitted entirely].
      • This is mentioned. There is a main article on the Occupation of Japan, so this is just a summary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • See item above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • But it is about MacArthur or the occupation? The policy change was in Washington, not Tokyo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It should be about MacArthur's conduct of the occupation; it is not - except insofar as it can be made an excuse for more school-girlish swooning.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In brief, this article has manifestly been written under the impression that what we want is the worst type of three-volume Victorian panegyric. Hence both the length and the tone. We do not; this is unacceptable, and we should cease to waste time on this until some editor is willing to rewrite from scratch - using a full range of contemporary sources (as I said, commenting on the article, where is Present at the Creation?), not just MacArthur and his friends; and reliable secondary sources.
  • It omits the most well-known fact about MacArthur: that Truman fired him for disobeying Truman's orders, and replaces it with a partisan falsehood (in the lead) and with an excuse (in the body).
  • Anybody capable of writing this atrocity cannot fix it; this should be closed until someone with a non-partisan view of American history is willing to take the effort of rewriting it from scratch - which is essentially what a sentence-by-sentence revision will require.
  • In the meantime, Hawkeye7, go edit something else. Do not promote under this nominator Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your tone is unhelpful, PMA; it would be wise to strike some of your commentary above and focus on the article. Are there sources missing that should be included? Is so, please name them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strike what you please, as long as it remains clear that no mere local tweak will render this article acceptable. It is understandable that nominators become emotionally involved; but this nomination evinces a total lack of understanding of what compliance with policy means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cited Dean Acheson's Present at the Creation as a (primary) source which demonstrates that the view pushed by this article is not consensus. It would certainly have been consulted by anyone looking for a variety of views on our subject.
      • There appears to be no general history of the Korean War in the bibliography, aside from a few citations of the United States official history (is there any evidence that this official history is a reliable source? Most aren't.)
      • A life of Hirohito would be a useful source for the peculiar relationship between MacArthur and Hirohito; doubtless American shogun : MacArthur, Hirohito and the American duel with Japan by Robert Harvey will be copious, but the few paragraphs in any biography of the Emperor may be more useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Official History of the Korean War is a very reliable source. I don't usually use general histories as they tend to be tertiary sources, based entirely on other books. In the article I did use Weinstraub and Stanton. Leary, James and Manchester also cover Korea. That MacArthur was fired for disobeying Truman's orders is not correct. Nor was he fired for being defeated. Pealman's Truman and MacArthur: Policy, Politics, and the Hunger for Renown (2008) examines this myth in detail, and reflects the consensus among historians that MacArthur was fired for disagreeing with Truman. Going into Ridgway's attempts to extract orders from the administration is beyond the scope of the article, but I'm hoping that it would be covered in the Korean War articles, which are unfortunately still very much under development. Looking at American history from the outside, there is no doubt that the President can fire any officer for any or no reason. In this case he fired a man seen by many Americans as a hero. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pearlman's own summary of his position is MacArthur was therefore likely to dance along the sideline of defiance until he finally stepped out into what Truman would call “rank insubordination.” That's not quite the same thing, is it? (Nor is any word of it reflected in the article.)
          • That you believe MacArthur to be a hero is all too obvious. That is why you should not be editing his article, much less nominating the result for FA. This is propaganda for a non-consensus position. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pearlman also strongly suggests that the claims made about the JCS are at best a half-truth: the Joint Chiefs “unanimously agreed that from a purely military point of view they thought he should be relieved.” (p.214) He goes on to qualify: In point of technical fact, the JCS had merely “concurred,” a word with a particular definition within military organizations. It did not mean advocated, but rather accepted without objection, if “that should be the President’s decision.” Granted the distinction could be subtle, particularly in the midst of a tension-ridden moment. Truman faced a historic decision, looked for support, and eventually got it from Marshall and Bradley, who dropped debate about alternatives to dismissal. Our article, however, does not say that they agreed with MacArthur's dismissal, nor that they concurred; but that they "decided not to recommend it". Really, spin like that should be kept in the ball-park. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Article prose size (including all HTML code): 138 kB; Prose size (text only): 83 kB; 13,836 words "readable prose size" This means that it would not be largest Featured Article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dave and I had another go at trimming. Prose now down to 77 kB and 12,770 words. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I applaud the wonderful work you have put into this article, and I feel it is very near FA quality and a very important topic. I won't bother with a full review, but I do not detect a great bias in the article. My comment though, is in a way related to that. The dismissal section is very wanting for details. Arguably, it was one of, if the largest, event of his career. The uproar and furor of it all was and is unprecedented. Nothing like that has ever happened before or since. Even the dismissals of the Civil War generals was nothing like this. I don't feel like that section does the event justice. I would feel better about it if the sub-article was more developed, but even it is really only cursory. There are alot of good sources that go into detail about the episode, and everything going on secretly behind the scenes. It almost feels like the whole thing is downplayed as it is now. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I hope you might reconsider reviewing the whole article. I too was hoping for more from the Dismissal article, which is still under construction. I'm a military historian specialising in WWI and WWII, so writing about Cold War politics means I'm no longer writing as an expert. Editing the section on Korea involved reading through a dozen books on the subject and gave me an appreciation of MacArthur's handling of the war. The dismissal section was carefully crafted to avoid and in some cases refute an number of common myths and misconceptions. I may have been over-cautious in handling what I knew to be a sensitive topic, especially in the wake of the War in Iraq. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't yet read further, but the problems of the "inelegant lead" are still present. Example:

Arthur MacArthur, Jr.
, and Douglas MacArthur were the first father and son to each be awarded the medal. He was one of only five men ever to rise to the rank of general of the army in the U.S. Army, and the only man to become a field marshal in the Philippine Army.

The son of Arthur MacArthur, Jr., Douglas MacArthur was raised as a

American Old West
.

  • Why are we told twice in three sentences who his father is?
  • Why so much emphasis on awards in the lead vs. other issues (as raised above)?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've removed the second mention of his father. The original concept was that the first paragraph would stand separate from the rest, just as the summary stands apart from the article. But where I come from, who your father is is the most important thing in your life. And so it was for MacArthur, who did not become famous in his own right until after his father's death. People would often greet Douglas by noting that he was the son of General MacArthur and he would joke that "he has that privilege."
    • In the first instance, because the overhaul of the article grew out of a project to fix up the Medal of Honor winner pages. It was decided that being one of two father-and-son Medal of honor winners was more notable than being one of several five-star generals or theater commanders. His multiple Distinguished Service Crosses would make him notable were it not for the other stuff he had done. (This has not stopped some editors from querying his notability though.) However, it is also there to refute a bizarre myth that he was a coward. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My attempt to trim this back in the lead was reverted quick smart. 124.176.24.14 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random find of redundancy? Why "decided to award" rather than just "awarded"?

For his leadership in the defense of the Philippines, General Marshall decided to award MacArthur the Medal of Honor, the decoration for which he had twice previously been nominated.

  • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because, at least nominally, the Medal was awarded by the Secretary of War and not the Chief of Staff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am finding the text more focused on MacArthur now, with less general info on the battles and War, so the prose reductions seem to have been effective, but why is the {{main}} template still in use? "Main" is used when this article is a summary of that article: is that true in every case? If not, a different template should be used (further detail, see also, etc.). Since this article focuses on MacArthur, is it truly a summary of those articles, or do those articles provide additional detail on the battles, wars, etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed them all to "Further information" except for the one on his dismissal. I was undecided about the one on the occupation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

  • I have hacked, slashed and burned through the overlink problems and spruced up the online references with publishers and more reliable sources etc. Also some minor and picky wording. --Brad (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored the red link for First Captain, and asked an editor who knows both the current and several former First Captains to write the article for me. Hawkeye7 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Douglas_MacArthur/archive1&oldid=1088205151"