Talk:The Utility of Force/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 07:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I will be reviewing this one. Please allow 24 hours for me to recover from riding for six hours comments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

No significant problems

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   A couple of minor issues below

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   One image, appropriately tagged

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Overall, no problems really. I am more interested in the history than the niceties, so a few points:

1. "Industrial warfare" appears in the Background. Consider re-wording slightly.

   Done.

2. Link "paradigm" (Smith read Kuhn but we cannot assume the readers have.)

   Done.

3. "Napoleon's concept of war involved using the entire resources of the nation with the aim of comprehensively defeating his opponent and replacing the political order, a strategy that was recognised by the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz in his treatise On War. As a result, the Prussian Army undertook widescale reforms in order to meet the threat posed by Napoleon." Consider re-wording this. Prussian reforms were in response to the crushing defeat by Napoleon in 1805, but the uniformed reader might think that it was in response to Clausewitz rather than Napoleon. Clausewitz was promoted to major general in 1818, and wrote the book over the following decade (it was published by his widow in 1832, two years after his death in 1830). So the sentences rock back and forth chronologically.

   Thanks, I've copy-edited this.

4. Diverging from the review for a moment, Clausewitz became popular reading in Britain in the wake of the Boer War, but by the 1940s, the British had become very hostile to him, and James Edward Edmonds and B. H. Liddell Hart blamed him for Germany's failures in both World Wars. But then in the 1980s, in the wake of the war in Vietnam, the Americans began taking up Clausewitz. Their writings are a major influence on Smith. "Clausewitz's triangular relationship of people, state and Army", which Smith refers to, was popularised by Harry G. Summers, Jr., in his neo-Clausewitzean analysis of the Vietnam War On Strategy: A Critical Analysis. Unfortunately, as the Wikipedia article points out (unsourced), this is based on faulty translation. The idea of the "decisive battle" is not from Clausewitz, but from Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy, a British historian. That the British are looking for answers in the wake of a series of embarrassing failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

   Y'see, that's exactly the sort of broader knowledge I hoped you'd bring. The benefit of bringing in someone who actually knows what they're talking about!

5. I lied. Grammatical quibbles:
   1. "and that it must be combined with political initiatives which, together will" remove the comma
   2. "He believes that the commanders were working at a tactical rather then a strategic level," then -> than
   3. "He asserts that force is only part of the solution to modern conflicts require complex political and military solutions" A word or two missing here

      All fixed, one by me and the others by drive-by editors (presumably from seeing it on DYK).

The article is really good. A few quick fixes and it will be ready for GA status. Hawkeye7 (talk)

Thanks, Hawkeye, I really appreciate you taking this on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)