Talk:Daniel Ménard

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Daniel Ménard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs) 14:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Starting to look over this now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll start off by ticking off some of the easy boxes. No copyright issues found, sourcing is good and in-line with no concerns about unsourced content. Don't see any WP:OR after checking the prose and sourcing. The writing is clear and concise. Despite the activity the article subject is most notable for, the article maintains a neutral tone and covers the content dispassionately. There's also no edit warring or significant editing at this point. That's points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

For point 6, we do have access to File:091217-N-0696M-345_(4193357086).jpg on commons, captioned Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is greeted by Canadian Gen. Daniel Ménard, commander of Joint Task Force Afghanistan in Kandahar, Afghanistan, Dec. 17, 2009. The image isn't great for an infobox portrait without some cropping and rotation, but without that work it would be an excellent fit for the Afghanistan section.

I did the crop 'n' rotate. Great find! It didn't even occur to me to check Commons for him.

Now onto a few nits to pick, lest I let you off too easy.

Lead

• Probably not necessary to wikilink the nationality, especially as Canadian Army is wikilinked, and the first sentence is a bit of a sea of blue.

• Done

• May be worth mentioning that he was one of the youngest general officers when we was promoted. Not terribly bothered, but it's mentioned in multiple sources.

• Done

• Wikilinking managing director might be a bit too much, especially as it redirects to CEO for some odd reason. Since he was the managing director for a geographical area, it doesn't really match the CEO target.

• Done

• In January 2014 he was arrested in Kabul following issues under Afghanistan's strict licensing regulations for private security contractors, Don't much like the way that reads. Perhaps "arrested in Kabul following licensing issues under Afghanistan's strict regulations for private security contractors"?

• Yes, that is much smoother

Military career

• That's a lot of blue, which I get when you're listing countries and military positions. Is there anything you're comfortable unlinking there, possibly platoon commander or general officers?

• I unlinked the countries, and the, er, general link to "general officers"

Afghanistan

• This is more of an issue with how sources report on things than the article content, but there is no notes of any positive contributions he may have made in the war. Unfortunately sources don't report on people doing a perfectly acceptable job so we're left with the car bomb that he got blamed for letting happen and accidentally shooting his rifle. A quick glance just to see if there is any other coverage that can flesh this out a bit is probably warranted, but I certainly understand that sources don't always provide the context or details we'd like.

• Aah, I had a brainwave of doing a date-limited search on Newspapers and got a bit more content about his work there pre-controversy. It isn't very detailed, mostly just about troop numbers under his command, but at least it gives a bit more before we get to harping on the poor man :P

Affair

• Overall I'm impressed at the neutral tone of this section. Just wanted to mention that again.

• Thanks, I wanted to be really careful not to paint him as a total jerk.

• Langlois admitted the relationship to investigators. Ménard pressured her to delete her emails and recant. Would be nice to better join those two sentences. Not actually anything wrong with it, I just find it a bit jarring, as it's just two statements of fact not linked chronologically or contextually. If there's no better context in sources I guess that's what it'll have to be though.

• I added "although", does that work? Basically there's not much more to it, he just tried to get her to lie and she didn't.

• Desk job doesn't really need a wikilink.

• lol fair

GardaWorld

• Dubai wikilinked twice

• Fixed

Personal life

• No need to provide the name of his non-notable wife, especially in an article that so heavily discusses his affair. WP:BLPNAME makes a presumption in favor of privacy, and her name doesn't add any useful context. This somewhat applies to the other party in the affair, but as they're directly linked to the affair and their name is widely covered I have less of an issue with that than I do the wife's name.

• Fair, removed.

All in all a very good article, and for the third time, maintains NPOV wonderfully when dealing with such a loaded topic. The only big issue at this point is using the available media. I also think the wife's name should be removed but I wouldn't fail the article because of it if you feel strongly about its inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• All responded to, let me know if you feel anything isn't sufficient. I know you weren't sure about your reviewing skills, but this is an excellent and thorough review, I appreciate you taking the time :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Y Looks good from where I'm sitting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2023 (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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Daniel Ménard was the first Canadian general to be dismissed on the battlefield since World War II? Source: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-former-top-soldier-in-afghanistan-daniel-menard-now-locked-in-kabul-jail-over-alleged-gun-smuggling
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Through the Darkest of Times

Improved to Good Article status by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 00:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Daniel Ménard; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Onegreatjoke, I wish you had asked me before nominating this. I deliberately did not DYK this, as the article is somewhat negative toward Menard, a BLP. In particular, the proposed hook violates rule 4, which states "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright then, withdrawing. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a possible hook for "At the time of his promotion, he was one of the youngest general officers in the Canadian Armed Forces." but if you don't want to do that then that's fine. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Pinging to see if they want to use the hook idea. If not then I'll withdraw the nom. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer not to DYK this one period. The subject is unfortunately primarily notable for a few somewhat embarrassing episodes. While he clearly meets GNG, I don't think we need to be splashing his name all over the main page and drawing attention to him just for Wikipedia points. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, then withdrawing nomination. Onegreatjoke (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)