Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Whiteside McCay

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

James Whiteside McCay edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)
Toolbox

Another Australian military biography. Who was the most prominent politician on the beach on Anzac Day, 25 April 1915? James Whiteside McCay. A man who could have been great, but wasn't that good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments:

  • Citation and cite xxx templates should not be mixed, as their codes don't play well together.
    • They should all be citations. Which one is wrong? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Education and early life, "John Monash would be dux the following year.". This sentence feels completely out of place and randomly dropped into the article. Would you please either remove it or add a short bit on why this is relevant to an article on McCay? I see that there is more information on the relationship between the two men in the Military section, but it would be nice to have some foreshadowing in this earlier section.
    • That's the idea. It foreshadows a long and important (to the country and the Army) relationship between the two men. I'll see what I can come up with. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a few words on Australia's best-known soldier. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, "daughter of a Roman Catholic Kyneton, Victoria police magistrate." Why does it matter what religion his father-in-law was?
    • Because his family were Ulster protestants. The trouble I have with writing these kind of articles is that I'm talking about my city, my Army, my country, my people really. So I know what it means to go to Scotch College or the University of Melbourne, or to have a Collins Street address, or to know the Baillieu family... I have to try and convey that somehow... Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a few words and linked to an article on sectarianism in Australia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Military career, "McCay and Monash became close. In 1912, McCay & Thwaites moved into offices at 360 Collins Street, where businesses associated with the Baillieu family were located. Monash moved his offices into the same building, and the two became close friends." The first sentence and the end of the last sentence are repetitive.
  • Western front, "subjecting them to such a humiliating and severe trail." Is this supposed to be "trial" or "trail"?
  • Same section, "These depots reinforcements arriving from Australia". What?
  • Same section, "McCay established his headquarters at Tidworth, in the heart of the Salisbury Plain are where most of the Australian camps were located." Again, what?
  • Just as a curiosity, why did he destroy his papers?
    • Well the conspiracy theory (viz Robin Corfield) is that they contained embarrassing documents. But no one knows... Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another nice article, with just a few issues before I will support for A-class. Dana boomer (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to support this article when the remaining issues (those not struck) have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of my comments have been satisfied, and I have added my support. Dana boomer (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Regarding the alt text for File:James mccay.jpg, I wouldn't exactly call McCay a "young man".
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, you need to clarify that this is the First World War.
  • "which he led in the disastrous Battle of Fromelles" - although it may be the case that the battle was "disastrous", this is a little POV.
  • "in Ballynure, County Antrim, Ulster, Ireland" - do we really need four areas/provences?
    • A Scots editor User:Mais oui! put it in back in November 2005. I defer to his superior local knowledge. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deleted "Ulster". The problem was that he was born in Ireland, but that where he was born is not in Ireland today. I have the same problem with a couple of other generals. I decided to delete "Ulster" because it adds little, Ulter and Northern Ireland not being coterminous. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this is a little over the top; a maximum of three is enough. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boyd McCay later continued his theological studies" - is this meant to mean that the was a break in the studies when he moved to Australia, or he continued them in Australia?
  • "and brother James" - is James correct? It just seems a little unusual one would name two of their children the same thing ...
  • "no mean feat for someone who" - "no mean feat" is a little POV.
    • I don't accept that it is POV. But on reflection I thought it was a little PEACOCK-ish. So I have changed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "calling war an "anachronism"" - is that regarding war in general, or just the Second Boer War?
    • Added "in general" but I don't think it sounds as good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For some reason, McCay preferred that the senior member not be styled the Chief of the General Staff." - this seems a little random, particularly with the "some reason".
  • "Richard Crouch, another Protectionist, who won convincingly." - this is slightly ambigious, and should be tweaked to fully point out that Crouch won.
  • In the "Military career" section, I would recommend that a "First World War" or "Great War" level three heading be added, and the "Gallipoli" and "Western Front" headings be changed to level fours.
  • It needs to be clarified in the "Gallipoli" section that you are actually talking about the outbreak of the First World War.
    • Done. The Great War is the only one most people kno about. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCay therefore did not step ashore until about 6:00" - was that morning or evening? Also, when was he supposed to land? There is no previos time given, so the "6:00" means very little.
    • About an hour earlier. 06:00 is in the morning; the evening is 18:00. The colon is some Wikipedia style thing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know 24 hour times. However, without the initial "0" it was slightly ambigious. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to clarify who Hamilton was.
    • I added a bit, but it doesn't really clarify things. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the parapraph on the Second Battle of Krithia, the use of "doomed" and "great courage" is highly POV.
  • "All of staff were killed or wounded" - gramma issue there.
  • "He rejoined him brigade at Anzac" - same here.
  • "walking with the aid of a walking stick" - the second "walking" is redundant.
  • "McCay's wife Julia died followed, several weeks later, by his father" - another grammatical issue.
  • Are there any further/specific details on his honours at Gallipoli?
  • "the duration of training to twelve weeks" - what was it previously?
    • Hard to say. There appears to have been no national curriculum. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow when I have the time. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - detailed and well-written/structured/cited/illustrated. I just have a couple of minor comments:

  • Intro: I think too many "Anzac"s in first sentence of lead's second para. Maybe drop "was an original Anzac"...
  • Great War: I think it's more common to use the term First World War, isn't it? Not really that fussed though as long as it's consistent.
    • Well it's consistent so long as we don't need to mention the War against Fascism and Militarism Second World War. In Australia we always referred to the big one as the Great War. Even, in fact, before it began. Hence many conversations like this with my grandfather:
      Hey, George, when did the red rattlers first start running?
      Just after the war.
      Er, which war was that?
      Great War.
  • However I am a bit dubious about the way "Anzac Day" is used, as though it was called that from the moment of the first landings.
    • Pretty much. You have to remember that the only campaign most people have heard of is Gallipoli. Several millions of dollars spent on "Australia remembers" failed to dredge up much about the Second World War, except for Kokoda (the track, not the battle). Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, great work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Btw, my favourite blue orchids are Rooney and Dale. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: an excellent biography that I believe meets A class criteria. I have one point that I feel needs fixing/explaining, however:
    • The References section appears to be slightly out of order (Ross appears before Pedersen) when it should be P before R if it is to be in alphabetical order. Is there a reason for this, or is it a mistake? Also the McCay pubication appears in bold, should this be like that? Other than that everything seems to be in order. Congratulations. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The order in the bibliography was right; the given and surnames were round the wrong way. Corrected this. And McCay's name is emboldened because this is his page. This could be fixed by removing the author link but then you wouldn't be able to cut and paste it into another page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No major readability problems, good job. – Joe N 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/James_Whiteside_McCay&oldid=1138360445"