This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
Here's the start of a ribbon rack based on the relatively recent pic in the infobox. Hopefully we'll get a source or two (other than the few vague, top-of-rack awards listed on his Navy bio page) so it can be moved to the article. This is the first draft. I still need to proofread it. Also need to figure out what the ribbon near the bottom right is (there are lots of similar ribbons, especially for state awards). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edited to move code to my userspace) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@129.67.117.148: Excellent! Looks like he's got a second DSSM, too? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't seem to have sources to use/cite (yet) for the decorations. In the past, I've been able to work from military-released statements, DD-214s, etc., but I've also seen other articles with no "official" sources. Where do we stand on this, policy-wise? Is it sufficient to look at the pic and construct the awards list, or is that foul per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: "Is it sufficient to look at the pic and construct the awards list" - It's been done before. I imagine that there are some that would frown on it, but I don't see why an image from a reliable source can't be used as a source itself. Sometimes that's all there is to go on. While bios like to include the major awards, they often skip the lesser ones, like campaign and qualification ribbons. - wolf 12:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They even skipped the multiple awards of the DSSM, LoM, and Air Medal . I'll wait a bit to see if the Navy gives us more to go on. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the Navy. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D, Animalparty, Zanhe, RFD, and InedibleHulk: We seem to disagree over the photo to be used in the infobox. I prefer the standard portrait (at least in this case), present at this version because it's in dress uniform and a proper portrait photo. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the standard portrait AlanM1 (talk·contribs) mentions should be used as the encyclopedic image of the subject in the infobox. It is, as Animalparty (talk·contribs) noted, the "best, most professional available", and that the justifications by Nick-D (talk·contribs) ("standard USN portraits make everyone look identical" and that the alternative should be preferred because it is "visually interesting") do not convince me. It's disappointing that the cycle of WP:BRD was not followed. 129.67.117.147 (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Standard image, of course. The reasoning given above by IP editor 129.67.117.147 just about covers it. And, I too am surprised that BRD wasn't followed, especially by an admin who has blocked numerous people for edit-warring, and therefore should know better. The standard image stays, unless there is a consensus to change it. - wolf 17:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like consensus favors the formal portrait, so I'll just add: per MOS:IMAGELEAD: the first image "should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see". The formal portrait File:Vice Adm. Scott A. Stearney (2).jpg is high quality, shows full face, is properly lit, and a natural, representative photograph. Nothing is wrong with using formal government portraits for people known primarily for their government service (and if "standard portraits make everyone look identical", I guess should we then change Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. They're all just a guy in a suit in front a flag!). The alternate is not a terrible photograph, but is significantly more grainy and dimly lit, with the face in three-quarter view. It might well be inserted into the body, if an image of Stearney speaking is called for and space allows. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the standard image as well, and agree with Animalparty that the other image can be used in the article body. -Zanhe (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall seeming to disagree on a photo, but now that I'm here, I'll prefer the portrait. They're generally great for portraying people. Only mugshots work better for profiles (by virtue of the profile view), but I doubt this guy has any. InedibleHulk(talk) 02:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons for using this photo is that it's a visually arresting photo (half body, clear, subject doing something) and is less stilted than the standard USN portrait. The photo has been used in lots of news stories (please see the results of the Google image search at [1]), including in military specialist publications (e.g. Navy Times) and the popular media. It also avoids the undesirable situation where if you're reading this article and click the link to Paul J. Schlise you get basically the same photo! It seems better to lead with a photo which is more likely to engage readers. But it looks like I'm in a minority! Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point of uniforms, though – to make people look "uniform" (not that I agree they look the same). Also, I'm reminded by discussions elsewhere (about post-nominals and about capitalization of product names and of CIA operation names) that WP style is not necessarily the same as external styles, as we have a different mandate (encyclopaedic, as opposed to "whatever it takes to get the most eyeballs"). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but I think that my preferred photo actually does a better job of showing what the subject looks like. It seems good practice to lead with the most interesting good quality photo - I always try to do this in articles - to encourage readers to read on. There's a risk of looking like a mirror of the USN website if we lead with the bog-standard official portraits all the time. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Nick, I agree it's a somewhat interesting photo and definitely worth adding to the article, but WP isnt like a book where people flip through pages and an image that catches their attention might get them to stop on that page and perhaps start reading. It's not like that with webpages. WP is the (4th? 5th?) most visited site in the world, we don't have trouble getting traffic. And will all the media attention surround his death, pleanty of readers will visit this page regardless of the photo. Speaking for myself, I prefer the standard/official photo for the infobox in militar bios. It just seems appropriate to have the uniformity (no pun intended). But that said, I support any effort to add more images to these articles. Interesting ones like Nick's, ones that show some diversity if possible, also older images to add chronologically to the history/early life/education/career stages, etc. sections. The more the better (without going overboard). Cheers - wolf 13:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nick-D. Interesting photo better. Srnec (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should the article be at Scott A. Stearney (instead of the current Scott Stearney)? The infobox title, Commons category, as well as many of the names of the pics and/or descriptions use the middle initial. Or should the Commons category be changed? Or...? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It'll come down to sources. Is the "A." used more often or not? Whichever the answer is, will be used as the wp:commonname argument to go with that variant. Someone should post some Google results soon enough... - wolf 19:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both seem to be commonly used in reliable sources. On balance, I prefer the shorter one per WP:CONCISE. -Zanhe (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=link}
