Talk:George S. Patton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next day or two, I'll start with a close readthrough of the text, noting here any issues that I can't immediately fix. Keep an eye on my copyedits and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Then we'll start the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one--looking forward to working with you on it, Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review! —Ed!^(talk) 13:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

I'm only a short ways in, but so far this looks solid, well-written and well-researched. Here are some comments to get you started, all on minor points:

• "his abilities to inspire his troops with vulgarity-ridden speeches, such as a famous address to the Third Army, led to a legacy which inspired new strategies in both leadership and tank warfare" -- this sentence gets a bit tangled and repetitive. I'm also not sure the plural abilities is needed here. How about, "his ability to inspire his troops with vulgarity-ridden speeches, such as a famous address to the Third Army, led to new strategies in both leadership and tank warfare."?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• There's a bit of pronoun confusion in Note 1: "William Patton changed his middle name to "Smith" after his son's birth to honor his father George Hugh Smith" -- Wm. Patton changed his own middle name, or GS Patton's? Or both?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• " he enrolled in Stephen Clark's School for Boys" -- seems more likely that he was enrolled rather than enrolling himself, but I defer to your sources.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• "in a salon" -- should this be "in a saloon"? Salon makes it sounds like he was in the middle of a conversation with Madame de Staël. =)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• "he tested and was promoted" --
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• " he was assigned to establish the AEF Light Tank School" -- is "he" Patton or Conner here?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• "which he commanded, at Langres," -- does this modifier refer to the ten tanks, or to the school?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'd read before that Patton in the anti-Bonus Army charge, but never heard the bit about Joe Angelo. Fascinating. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I've never done an article on someone so heavily researched and was amazed at the little details like this one. —Ed!^(talk) 13:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

More

• It's not an issue for GA one way or the other, but you might think about swapping the dates to US style per WP:STRONGNAT.
  • MILMOS applies here, as Patton is notable only in his actions in military history, DMY is preferred. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• "west into Brittany, south, east toward the Seine, and north" -- is this correct that the Third Army advanced to all four compass points at once? weren't they on a seacoast?
  • Yes, the Field Army numbered several hundred thousand. They moved in all directions to expand the bridgehead. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• "probably the key to Patton's success compared to all of the other U.S. and British forces" -- is this widely agreed on? It sounds like we might be verging into opinion here, so it might be helpful to rephrase as "Jane Historian writes that", but if this is the consensus opinion, don't worry about it.
  • Agreed, took that out. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• "the most brilliant operation we have thus far performed, and it is in my opinion the outstanding achievement of the war.'This is my biggest battle" -- something's gone wrong in the punctuation of this quote (the apostrophe after war)--is this one quotation or two?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• "It was during this crossing that Patton boasted to have urinated into the river as he crossed" - a bit ambiguous--did he boast as he did it, or later boast that he had done it?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• "In this speech he aroused some controversy among the Gold Star Mothers when he insinuated that men who die in battle are "fools" and that the real war heroes are the wounded." -- this needs more direct citation because of the "fools" quotation--is it from Axelrod?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• " conscious at appropriate times" -- this phrase confuses me.
  • Removed that phrase. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• "However, his frequent slips and politically inept comments also stirred substantial controversy." -- this seems rather redundant with the first sentence of the paragraph--could it simply be cut?
  • Removed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• " as a result of his frequent controversies in the press" -- did he believe the reporters covering him to be Jewish? I'm not sure I quite follow this part.
  • According to the D'Este, Patton believed the Jews controlled the media, but I think it's a fringe theory that doesn't really need to be there, since there is already a sizable section of his varying attitudes on race. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Referring to the escape of the Afrika Korps after the Battle of El Alamein, Fritz Bayerlein opined that "I do not think that General Patton would let us get away so easily."" -- this one might be cut--the general point is established already, and this seems like a pretty minor statement. Not a big deal either way for GA, though, feel free to ignore.
  • I thought it would give some insight into the German views on Patton even as early as the Africa campaign. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Overall this article looks very strong; interesting and comprehensive read on a fascinating man. Take a look at the small above issues when you get a chance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Addressed all of the above. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass-- excellent work.