Talk:US House and Senate career of John McCain (until 2000)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

My review is in progress. I hope to have it completed by the end of the weekend. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing the review! Do you want me to respond to your comments as you make them here, or wait until you are finished with the whole review? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Whichever you prefer. My preference would be that you hold off until I'm done the review (which should for sure be by the end of tomorrow), but if you want to get working on it right away, go ahead. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've completed the review, and the article is now a GA. Well done to all concerned. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it well-written?

The writing isn't terrible, but there's quite a bit of room for improvement. Many sentences could be split up, and semi-colons are currently somewhat overused (these are chronic shortcomings of mine as well), and there are quite a few words that could be eliminated without hurting the prose's meaning. Many words are repeated too frequently; this is especially true of McCain's name. Additionally, direct quotations are somewhat overused. I'm recommending quite a few specific changes below, but one way or another I think the article could benefit from a few thorough copyedits from different editors. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• The lead is much too short. Per WP:LEAD, the lead for an article of this size should be three or four paragraphs. This one is only two paragraphs, the first of which is too short to really count. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This was deliberate, although I took it a bit too far and have expanded the lead somewhat. This is a biographical subarticle, and most readers come to it by having clicked on it from the main John McCain article (alas, Google rarely puts bio subarticles high in its search results, so readers don't get here directly; this is one of the problems with WP:Summary style for BLPs, but that's a whole other issue). Given that, readers have already seen some or all of the long, 20-paragraph summary of this article at John McCain#House and Senate elections and career, 1982–2000. So I figure they want to get to the lower-level detail right away, not see yet another recap. Hence the light lead section. I took the same "light lead" approach at Early life and military career of John McCain, the predecessor subarticle, and it achieved FA status. So I think it's a legitimate model to follow. But as I said, I have expanded the lead somewhat, just not to the size you'd normally see on an article of this length. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That makes some sense, and I can live with your explanation. I've done some light copyediting to the lead; please confirm that these changes are acceptable to you (we don't need the primary author and the GA reviewer edit-warring over this). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Your changes are fine. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Rad. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Several of the photo captions are not complete sentences (which is fine) but end with periods anyway. Per MOS:CAPTIONS, this shouldn't be the case. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed (some made sentences, periods dropped from the others). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Only remaining problem here is under the ship dedication image, in which the second "sentence" isn't a sentence but is still ended with a period. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Revised to make a second sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...he was elected to the U.S. Senate from Arizona in 1986." Misplaced modifier. I'd suggest something like "He was elected U.S. Senator from Arizona in 1986". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Surviving the Keating Five scandal of the 1980s, he would then make campaign finance reform one of his signature concerns." I'd eliminate the word "then", and add "After" to the beginning of the sentence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Rewritten. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Much better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Having moved to Phoenix in March 1981, McCain went to work for Hensley & Co., his new father-in-law Jim Hensley's large Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship as Vice President of Public Relations." As "his new father-in-law Jim Hensley's large Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship" is functioning as a parenthetical device, it needs to have a comma at the end of it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain had little interest in the beer business itself, instead preferring to talk about current events." The way this reads now, he preferred to talk about current events than work in the beer business. This parses a little oddly, since it seems a false choice, like preferring to read two hours before bed than take the bus to work in the morning. Could it be clarified? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Checked the source, reworded to clarify that he was talking to colleagues about current events instead of business. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain's original plan had been to run for a new Arizona House seat..." Are we talking about an Arizona seat in the House of Representatives, or about a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives? Either way, I think a wikilink (to the district in question if federal, or to the legislature if state) would solve the problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarified that it was a U.S. House seat. Linking to the district is problematic because they've been shuffled twice since in reapportionments, and they aren't now what they were then. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...with his formal announcement of candidacy coming in late March 1982." Awkward. How about "...and formally announced his candidacy in late March 1982."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain faced three already-running candidates in the Republican nomination process, Arizona State Senator Jim Mack, Arizona State Representative Donna Carlson-West, and veterinarian and active civic figure Ray Russell." A few issues with this sentence. First, I'd replace "McCain" with "He". Second, I'd replace the comma following "process" with a colon or an emdash (I'd prefer the former). Third, I'd replace "already-running candidates" with "opponents"; if it's important to establish that they announced their candidacies before McCain did, add something like ", all of whom had entered the race before him" after "process". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done all, as you suggested. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain focused on an exhausting schedule of door-to-door campaigning to introduce himself, with he and his wife calling on homes on voter rolls six hours a day, six days a week." This is too wordy. How about something like "McCain and his wife campaigned door-to-door six hours a day, six days a week."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "The campaigning, combined with his hair color, led to him being nicknamed "The White Tornado"." I'd remove the commas here; they're optional, and I find they disrupt the flow of the sentence. I'd also see if I could replace "The campaigning" with something a little more gripping: "This exhaustive schedule", if you do indeed remove that wording from the previous sentence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done, along the lines you suggested. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "A Phoenix Gazette columnist..." Why not name the columnist? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Columnist isn't well known outside Arizona, but good point nonetheless, name now added. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "The spending advantage enabled him to conduct productive television advertising..." Awkward. How about something like "The spending advantage made itself felt in television advertising..."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain was endorsed by Senator John Tower, a friend and mentor from his liaison stint, and Tower was able to pull in some effective local endorsements for McCain." The language is a little colloquial here ("stint", "pull in"). As well, McCain's name is repeated twice in this sentence. This could be solved by simply removing "for McCain". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I like 'stint', especially in a military context. Did the other changes. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I can live with that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...Goldwater was said to admire McCain's military service but viewed McCain as a political opportunist." A few issues: first, the parallelism doesn't work ("admire" isn't parallel with "viewed"). Second, it's a little bit run-on (not critically, but a little bit). Third, McCain's name is used far too often in this sentence. Finally, it emphasizes Goldwater's admiration for McCain's military service when the more important part in context is his assessment of McCain as a political opportunity. How about reworking to "...but many of his aides were working for McCain's opponents. Goldwater himself was said to view McCain has a political opportunist, despite admiring his military service."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done, along the lines you suggested. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain also benefited..." The "also" is odd here, since the preceding sentences were about things that clearly didn't benefit McCain. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "By comparison, the general election two months later became an easy victory for him in the heavily Republican district,[1] as McCain defeated Democrat William E. Hegarty with 66 percent of the vote to 31 percent." Too wordy. Consider tightening to "He went on to easily win the general election for the heavily Republican district two months later, defeating Democrat William E. Hergarty by a count of 66 percent to 31 percent." Also, Hegarty's currently a redlink. I don't object to redlinks if there's some reason to believe that the article should or will eventually exist; is this the case with Hegarty? Same goes with the other redlinks in the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reworded along the lines you suggested. As for redlinks, I like them, and I agree with this Signpost article that the relentless removal of red links is a Bad Thing. There are some editors out there who like to go back and fill in old elections, candidates, and laws, so there's a decent chance that one day the red links I've left here will turn blue. I've seen it happen on other articles I've written. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I love redlinks (they make de-orphaning new articles must easier), but only if there's reason to believe that the subject clears WP:N. I'll defer to your superior knowledge of American electoral matters here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain was elected the president of the 1983 Republican freshman class of representatives." Overuse of his name. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "After strenuously lobbying the House leadership, he was assigned to the Committee on Interior Affairs, a position he desired in order to build up his expertise on issues important to Arizonans such as water rights and other natural resources, public land management, and Native American affairs." Long. Consider breaking this up, into something like "After strenuously lobbying Republican leadership, he was assigned to the Committee on Interior Affairs. He coveted this assignment because he hoped it would help him develop expertise on issues relevant to his state, including water rights, public land management, and Native American affairs." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done along these lines, a little different wording. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "He fulfilled a campaign pledge to return to his congressional district every weekend, making 47 such trips in his first year, meeting frequently with constituents and making many public appearances." Uses the present tense too much. How about "He fulfilled a campaign pledge to return to his congressional district every weekend, making 47 such trips in his first year. He took advantage of these trips to meet frequently with constituents and make many public appearances." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done along these lines, somewhat terser wording. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Terser's usually better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain sponsored a number of Indian Affairs bills" Is there a reason "Indian Affairs" is capitalized? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 'affairs' now lower case. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good (yeah it should have been obvious why "Indian" was capitalized. Duh.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...dealing mainly with giving distribution of lands to reservations and tribal tax status..." Consider eliminating "giving". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "The measure, which had failed in the House four years earlier,[26] now passed the House 338–90 and was signed into law later that year." Avoid repetition of "the House". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...whom McCain would later write had the greatest political influence on him of anyone:" Consider rewording to "...McCain would later describe as his greatest political influence". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• The third paragraph of "House years" has three consecutive sentences that begin with "He supported", immediately following one that begins with "McCain supported". These could use some reconfiguration. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed two 'supported's to something else, but kept the rest of the form. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Much better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain suspected the group of illegal activity and resigned in 1984." It's not clear whether he suspected the U.S. Council for World Freedom of illegal activity, or merely the World Anti-Communist League. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to make clear it was the council. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...would also gain him..." Consider "also gained him". The conditional tense is often overused in Wikipedia articles, including some that I've written. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I use it fairly often, to indicate temporary jumps forward in the chronology, but this wasn't such a case. Changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "He took more moderate stands on the environment and on social issues..." More moderate than what? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to just 'moderate', clear enough. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "In 1986, McCain broke party ranks in voting to successfully override Reagan's..." Misplaced modifier. Try "...successfully voting to override...". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...as obsessed about the dangers of communism..." Should be "obsessed with", unless I'm very much mistaken. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...and as described by his press secretary Torie Clarke..." I'd change to "...according to...". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...as well as revelations of father-in-law Jim Hensley's past brushes with the law, became campaign issues as well." Repetition of "as well". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Second instance removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "He became a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, with whom he had formerly done his Navy liaison work;" Replace "whom" with "which". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "he also joined the Commerce Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee." While I suppose it's accurate, "joined" is an odd choice of verb here. It makes it sound like these are clubs he joined during Senate frosh week, or something. How about "was appointed to", or something similar? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to 'was given'. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "He supported the failed 1987 nominate of Reagan U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork." A couple of things: first, "nominate" is a typo, I believe (nomination?). Second, the use of two words with the nominat& root is awkward. How about "He supported the failed 1987 confirmation of..."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reworded whole sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Much better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain was a strong supporter of the Gramm-Rudman legislation that enforced automatic spending cuts in the case of budget deficits. He supported the failed 1987 nominate of Reagan U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork." These seem like an abrupt change of subject, and could stand to be better-integrated with the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I tweaked it a bit. There isn't a big connection except that these were two very major issues/debates of the time and I wanted to include where he stood on them.
    • I can live with this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Never deceived them," This is a direct quote, and I understand that implying the subject is not unusual for McCain, but here it should probably read "[I] never deceived them". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's like this in the source, and as you say it conveys how he speaks. I'd rather leave it like this. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I can ilve with this too. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...one of the main writers..." How about "authors" or "drafters"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to 'drafters'. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...Governor of Arizona Evan Mecham..." I'd remove "of Airzona", since it's clear from the preceding "McCain's home state" that that's where we're talking about. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...persistence in making an American flag despite beatings that drew audience tears..." Misplaced modifier, as it reads as though the beatings drew audience tears when in fact it was the speech that did so. Easiest way of dealing with this is probably to split up the sentence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think a comma insertion makes it clear. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I think you're creating a de facto parenthetical here, which means that there should also be a comma after "speech". Or am I misunderstanding this? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • You're right, comma added. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...short list vice-presidential running mate..." This doesn't seem right. How about something like "as being on the short list for George Bush's running mate"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...as he would later write..." "and" would be more appropriate than "as" here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think 'as' is better, because the second clause motivates the first, rather than following from it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I see how. Are you saying that his view of Weyrich, as later expressed, caused his difficult relationship with the religious right? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes and no ... I've tried to simplify, just chop the two clauses with a semi-colon. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I like. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• "In the context of the Savings and Loan crisis of that decade, Charles Keating Jr.'s Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, a subsidiary of his American Continental Corporation, was insolvent as a result of some bad loans." I don't know that it makes sense to say that it was insolvent in the context of the crisis; it was just plain insolvent, wasn't it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The 'in the context' really belonged to the previous sentence; I've reworked it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Lincoln violated violated..." Repeated word. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...to whom he made contributions" Should that be "to whom he had made contributions"? Or were the contributions ongoing, as suggested by the current wording? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, they were ongoing. Charlie Keating was a determined and nervy guy! (subject of another BLP of mine, still need to do some more research before GAN or FAC) Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay then. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "This caught the eye of federal regulators who were looking to shut it down." It's not exactly clear what "it" refers to here: the company itself? The practice of investing insured funds in commercial real estate ventures? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Was Lincoln, I clarified. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain paid for his air trips totaling $13,433." I'd suggest "...paid a total of $13,433 for his air trips." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...wanted to drop any action against McCain and Glenn" Glenn isn't previously mentioned in this article, and so should be referred to here by his full name. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain was mildly rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee..." The committee is already referred to by its full name (and wikilinked) two sentences earlier. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...but the Senate panel's 1991 report..." If this is the committee again, I'd suggest "...but its 1991 report...". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain and his staff were also suspected..." Not sure what "also" denotes here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I tend to use 'also' too much. Removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I do too. Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain survived the political scandal by, in part, becoming friendly..." I'd suggest "...in part by becoming friendly" because it flows better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...became in demand." How about "came into demand" or similar? I'm not sure that's right either, but the current wording strikes me as quite inappropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to 'came into demand', seems okay to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...was slow getting her campaign underway, and although 1992 was the Year of the Woman in American politics," "and" isn't part of the parenthetical here, and should therefore be located before the comma. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...and during the same election Arizona finally passed a referendum, which McCain supported,[101] enabling the state Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday." I'd suggest hiving this off into a separate sentence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...a non-profit democracy promotion..." Should "democracy promotion" be hyphenated? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems borderline, but I've done it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Me too. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...getting the Department of Defense to declassify..." "Getting" isn't a great word choice here. I'd suggest something more along the lines of "ordered" or "persuaded", depending on the circumstance. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to 'persuaded'. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain developed "unbounded respect and admiration" for Kerry..." I think if you replace that mention of Kerry with "him", it will still be clear who you're talking about. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "In return, McCain attacked those he saw as profiteers exploiting the families of those missing in action." Not really sure this is "in return", since it seems to me (though I may be wrong) that the people attacking McCain weren't the same ones that he was attacking. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It wasn't the same people per se, but it was the same POW/MIA activist movement. I think the 'In return' is a necessary connector here. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...had gotten the Vietnamese..." I'd try "persuaded" or "convinced". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to 'convinced'. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...find real, not fabricated, evidence..." Unless this is a direct quote, I'd suggest shortening to "find evidence". "Real" is implied, as is "not fasbricated". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Vietnam War POW/MIA saga there were many notorious instances of evidence of "live prisoners" being fabricated. So while it many seem redundant from a linguistic viewpoint, in the context of this issue, I think it's necessary to state it the way I did. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I can live with it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...with the country of Vietnam." I'd remove "the country of". If you really want to include a long form (I don't think you should), "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" would probably be better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...giving Clinton, who came of age during Vietnam but did not serve in the military, some political cover." I'd hive this off into a separate sentence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Run-on sentences are another hazard of my writing approach. Split up. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Mine too. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...of a piece with McCain's attitude..." I'd never heard the phrase "as a piece with". Google confirms that you're not making it up, but is it at an appropriate level of formality for a Wikipedia article? If you say it is, I'll take your word for it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe "of a piece with" is indeed used in formal writing; here's a Google Scholar search that shows a lot of hits for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...a speaking visit to The Wall..." "The Wall" seems sort of like a colloquial nickname; is that the case? If so, it should probably be replaced with something more suitable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Especially in the context of the emotional resonance it has for veterans, it's often better known by that name than its formal name. Here's another Google Scholar search, if you look at just the first page of hits, you'll see several books that use "The Wall" in their titles. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure I agree. While do seem to be many examples of the term's use in the titles of academic pieces, titles are often more colloquial than academic. I'd be more convinced by some examples of the term being used in academic writing without any previous references to the memorial, as is being done here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've changed it to the formal name. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks. If you still feel I'm wrong about this, feel free to solicit other views. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...challenging Clinton's moral right to do so." Misplaced modifier. "to do so" here grammatically refers to "escorted Clinton", which obviously isn't what is intended. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reworded end of sentence, hopefully okay now. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "He also struck up a friendship with an anti-war leader who had once traveled to Hanoi to make an anti-American propaganda broadcast, that McCain had heard in his cell." First of all, do we have this anti-war leader's name? Second, I'd replace "that" with "which" or, in the alternative, remove the comma. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed the comma, and added the person's name. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain became chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in 1995, and would hold that position into 1997." This doesn't seem to relate to any other material in its paragraph. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • True ... but as a committee chair on an issue he'd long worked on, it's biographically important and that's where it fits in the chrono. I can't really see any other place for it at the moment, I'll look again with fresher eyes. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, seamless narrative isn't one of the GA criteria, so I guess this is okay. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society. I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard. Although I may admit to failures in my private life, I have at all times, and to the best of my ability, kept faith with every oath I have ever sworn to this country. I have known some men who kept that faith at the cost of their lives. I cannot — not in deference to public opinion, or for political considerations, or for the sake of comity and friendship — I cannot agree to expect less from the President." Per WP:MOSQUOTE, this should be a block quotation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've cut its length a lot instead. It doesn't really merit the prominence of a blockquote, it's not one of the more famous things he's said (unlike the blockquote near the top of the article, which pretty much is the most famous thing he's said). Wasted Time R (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I like that better anyway - more powerful, I think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This criterion is now a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

Mostly good; the article is very well-cited. Some issues with the cites:

• Many of the references lack accessdate parameters. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have a long response. What I have done, in this and other similar articles I've worked on for a while now, is to only provide access dates for web-only sources and for recent newspaper or magazine sources where the published content on the web may not always be the same as the printed content . For many older newspaper or magazine sources, where the online copy exactly matches the print copy, I don't give an access date. That's because there's no need (the source is defined by the print/microfilm version, and still remains as a valid cite even if the online copy goes away or goes behind a paywall) but there is a cost (the access dates drive up article size and can be confusing to readers, if they mistake which of the two dates on a cite is the important one). You can read a long discussion thread on this (started by me) at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Retrieval dates for online versions of old printed sources, again. The actual guideline in WP:CITE has been in flux ever since (currently marked as "[dubious – discuss]"), but at that discussion thread, the consensus seemed to be that for established sources like The New York Times (which is the kind of source this McCain article uses a lot), "the accessdate is not really needed". So that's how I wrote this. This approach has passed muster on some other GA articles I've done, such as at Talk:Keating Five/GA1. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You may have overestimated how much I care about the accessdate parameter. It does appear that it's not exactly a settled question, so I'll let it slide. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• I see that you've included a rationale for every citation of Worth Fighting For. I presume that this is because autobiographical works aren't always reliable, which is true; however, I'm not sure actually including the justification in the footnote serves the reader well. Would it be possible to comment it out, or otherwise hide it from the reader? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I started doing this at Early life and military career of John McCain, to answer the objections of a couple of reviewers who failed it at FAC the first time around. And certainly during the election, using McCain/Salter as a source was a bit radioactive. At one point WP:PRIMARY or WP:RS or somewhere spoke very darkly of autobiographies as sources, and this was also in reaction to that. (That text has either been changed since then, or I'm not remembering where it was accurately.) I'm still thinking about what to do with these now ... Wasted Time R (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, my recommendation remains to either remove them or comment them out, but I'm not going to hold up the GA over it one way or another. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• For convenience and consistency, I'd suggest moving the books that aren't currently in the bibliography (Mason, Coram, Barone, Goldgeier, Tolchin, Bennett, Mitchell, Brown, Maisel) there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A lot of articles are written that way (and I've written some of them), but here I've tried to match the style of John McCain and Early life and military career of John McCain, both of which are FA. The only books they list in their bibliography are those which are either fully about McCain or where McCain plays a substantial, recurring role. These other books don't fit that criteria. For example, the Mason book is a long history of Indian affairs and Washington, that happens to mention McCain's role a couple of times. The Bennett and Mitchell books are memoirs by well-known Washington figures, that only mention McCain's role in Keating Five as part of discussing their own role or views. And so forth. That's why I haven't pulled them out into the bibliography. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, I can live with this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• References 47, 48, and 67 lack publishers. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Added for the first two. The third is the Proceedings of the National Public Policy Education Conference, which is published by ... hard to tell, perhaps the National Public Policy Education Committee, which is the same thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• While foreign language sources are allowed, English ones are to be preferred. Is the material in the Spanish references not available by any English reliable source? If not, are you sure it's off sufficient importance to be included? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This material and its cites is the result of a long, contentious debate (with me usually caught in the middle, at least from my perspective) that began in the main article at Talk:John_McCain/Archive_14#Meeting_Pinochet, ran through it being locked down at Talk:John_McCain/Archive_14#Lockdown, a long RfC discussion at Talk:John_McCain/Archive_14#Request_for_comment, and then spilled over into this article at Talk:House_and_Senate_career_of_John_McCain,_until_2000#Pinochet. User:Jossi felt strongly about the inclusion of the Spanish-language sources. I feel strongly that it's best to let sleeping dogs lie! We reached a state on this issue tolerable to all, I think the result is fair and no injustices have been done, and I don't want to undo that. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'm not going to barge in and upset a delicate consensus. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• The following references' external links are dead: 2, 10, 32, 57, 98, and 131. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 2, 32, and 98 have been fixed. 10 consistently works for me. 57 and 131 are still outstanding. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 57 has now been revived via archive.org, while 131 has been replaced by a different source. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Huh - linkchecker said 10 doesn't work, but it appears to have been on crack. Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This criterion is now a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it broad in its coverage?

Overall, it's definitely broad (if need be, I could pass the criteria with no further changes). There are a few places I feel that the level of detail could be increased or decreased:

• "Rhodes suggested that McCain first run for the Arizona Legislature to gain more experience, but McCain's feeling was, "No way."" Some elaboration on his reasons for this decision would be helpful, if they're available. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 'No way' now replaced with McCain's disinclination to work his way up slowly. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk)
• "...but Tower was able to limit damage from it." How? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Explanation now included. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Much better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• The paragraph about Martin Luther King Jr. Day is quite detailed, but doesn't actually explain McCain's reasons for opposing the holiday at first. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's back up in the 'House years' section: "In August 1983, he voted against a bill making Martin Luther King, Jr. Day a federal holiday,[24] saying it would be too expensive and that there were already enough federal holidays.[25]" Wasted Time R (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Er, so it is. WP:TROUT me at will. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Given the existence of a separate article on the subject, I think the Keating section may be overdetailed. I'd suggest pruning material that doesn't relate directly to McCain, and sticking a {{main|Keating Five}} at the top of the section. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree on this one. Neither this section nor Keating Five is strictly a "main" of the other; this section has a bit more detail on McCain's role, while Keating Five of course has much more detail on the affair as a whole. Keating Five is the major scandal of McCain's career, and it deserves a thorough treatment here. The non-McCain-specific material included here is to give proper context to the whole matter, so that readers can better understand McCain's role in it. Other biographers give a lot of space to Keating Five; for example, the Nowicki-Muller Arizona Republic bio series that's cited a lot in these articles gives a full installment to it. And finally, McCain's own memoir Worth the Fighting For has more than 40 pages on Keating Five, including a lot of background that doesn't pertain specifically to his role. So I think the weighting is appropriate here. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The first and fifth paragraphs don't seem to have anything to do with McCain. That said, if you insist, this is still of GA quality. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, these paragraphs are part of the necessary context. The reason it was such a big scandal is not just because of what the senators did, but because of how many people were badly hurt financially because of the failure of Lincoln. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • As I said, I'll ultimately defer to you on this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• "In 1993 and 1994, McCain voted to confirm President Clinton's nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, whom he considered to be qualified for the Supreme Court. He would later explain that "under our Constitution, it is the president's call to make."" The second sentence implies that his support for these nominees was somehow surprising; I presume that this is because he was considered quite conservative and these judges weren't, but maybe something could be made explicit about that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Now clarified. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "McCain was one of only four Republicans in Congress to vote against the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995, and was the only Republican senator to vote against the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996. He was one of only five senators to vote against the Telecommunications Act of 1996." Some explanation of his positions on this legislation would be nice, if it's available. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I had trouble finding these explanations and forgot to respond on it. I've now added explanations for two of them. I've looked for the third, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and although I'm sure the reason is that he thought it protected corporations at the expense of ordinary shareholders, I haven't found a decent source for it. I've commented the original text out, so that GA can proceed; I've made a note to myself to come back to it sometime in the future. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Very good - I wouldn't even object to the re-insertion of the Private Securities thing without an explanation; I just thought it would be nice to have one if it was available. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Ranger was a motorcycle enthusiast and political novice who had only recently returned from Mexico." Not sure of the necessity of this sentence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's to vividly illustrate that the Democrats were unable to come up with any serious contenders to McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think it succeeds in that objective; it would be quite possible to be a political heavyweight who is also a motorcycle enthusiast who spends time in Mexico. Is there more information that can be added? Was the guy also unemployed, for example? Or had he been attending some kind of new agey burning man type thing in Mexico? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I've expanded this to: "Ranger was a motorcycle enthusiast whose Harley-Davidson was painted as the flag of Arizona[135] and a political novice who had only recently returned from four years of working and living in Mexico.[136]" The last part is certainly relevant, as it's hard to run for statewide office when you've been out of the state (and country) for the past four years. On the other hand, the motorcycle appearance shows that he felt a strong allegiance to the state. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I like that much better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This criterion is now a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it neutral?

Generally. A few issues in a couple of sections:

• "...a highly effective two-minute mini-documentary..." I'm not sure we should outright state that it was highly effective. If the sources call it highly effective, we should attribute that judgment to them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think this one's in dispute. It already has two cites on it. I've added a sentence saying that one of McCain's opponents in the race later said it was the best ad he'd ever seen. If all these people are saying it was highly effective, we can too. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, I can live with this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...pull in some effective local endorsements..." Same thing here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This was something of a mistake; checking the source, Tower got McCain one big endorsement, that of former Gov. and Sen. Paul Fannin, not several little ones. I've corrected it. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Much better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...made him popular and the biggest star among the new House members." Generally the same thing here: I'm not sure we can say authoritatively, on the basis of a single newspaper article from twenty-five years after the fact, that he was the biggest star of the incoming class. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've watered this down to "a star among new House members", which I don't think is in dispute (most new House members work in obscurity, McCain was clearly different, as his election as class president attests to in the next sentence). This newspaper article was bitterly attacked by Mark Salter and Cindy McCain during and after the 2008 election, although not over this particular item. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That's better - it was mostly the superlative to which I objected. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...would seem prescient after the catastrophic Beirut barracks bombing a month later;" There are definite POV problems here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem here. The 'seem' is key: even though McCain didn't predict this attack happening, he went against his party and president in opposing the deployment as unwise, and was the deployment went bad he got a lot of media exposure on it and related subjects. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The trouble is that the bombing didn't objectively demonstrate that he was right in believing that there was no attainable objective or that the U.S. should not be in there; it's not prescient unless you're later proved right. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree, in the sense that in politics, perception is often more important than reality. But we need to move forward, so I've removed 'prescient' and now have: "McCain voted against a 1983 resolution allowing President Reagan to keep U.S. Marines deployed as part of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, on the grounds that he "[did] not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon."[1] After the catastrophic Beirut barracks bombing a month later, this stance against his party and president gained him national media exposure and started his reputation as a political maverick.[1]" Wasted Time R (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I really like that; in my view, those are much easier to support objectively than the suggestion of prescience. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...attacking the corrupting influence of big money..." This comes across as endorsing McCain's views on the subject (i.e. that "Big Money", a prejorative, has a corrupting influence). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • View now ascribed to him. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...large money interests..." Same thing here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've changed "large moneyed interests" to "some of the interests targeted", which is better because some were political advocacy groups, not just big corporations or unions. I've also added a cite to the whole sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Much better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...pork barrel spending..." Again - Wikipedia shouldn't use terms like this without attributing who's making the characterizations. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Label now ascribed to him. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...take on the tobacco industry..." "Take on" is rather sympathetic language. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Replaced by neutral 'engaged'. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • "Engaged" is definitely more neutral, but I'm not sure it's as descriptive as it could be. How about "challenged"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• "...explaining that he had needed it..." The use of "explaining that" takes it as a given that his rationale was as stated. "Responding" might be a better verb. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Replacing by simple 'saying'. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This criterion is now a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it stable?

Pass. No edits of any kind since January 27. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it illustrated, if appropriate, by properly-licensed images?

Pass. Image choices are appropriate and all verifiably in the public domain. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the very lengthy and detailed and useful review. I believe I've now responded to all your points. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)