Talk:Virgil L. Peterson

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Virgil L. Peterson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 18:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Will look at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 18:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   • The lead might be better off organized chronologically, so it's more clear what his notability is.

• How about that? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • " where he played football, and received a Bachelor of Science in 1902. He then taught until 1904," -- I assume his degree was in education? Did he teach at the secondary or university level?

• Neither are specified in the source. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • "He was made a corporal, then first sergeant, and eventually a cadet captain." -- Do you mean cadet corporal and cadet first sergeant?

• yup. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • "He graduated third in the United States Military Academy class of 1908." -- Of how many total?

• Yeah, added Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • "His classmates included Glen Edgar Edgerton." -- Is there anyone else to add here? And did he have a notable relationship to Edgerton? Otherwise that can probably be taken out.

• Taken out Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Source spotcheck What I can see of refs 2 and 7 back up what's cited in the article.

   • What makes Ref 4 a reliable source?

• It is "a searchable database of valor award citations collected by Doug Sterner, a Vietnam veteran and Military Times contributing editor, and by Military Times staff. All recipients in the database are verified by source material such as official award citations, narratives and/or synopses from individuals or records from the National Archives."

1. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • Military Service: "From February to May 1908, Peterson was stationed at Fort Leavenworth. Until September, he was at Fort Riley, when he was assigned to map work in Fort Benjamin Harrison." -- Very terse mentions of all three assignments. Any chance for which units he was assigned to or more detail on what kind of work he did?

• Much of the content in this article comes from Cullum, which says very little, for example, of this comment and the below one saying "Fort Riley, Kans., July 27 to Sept. 30, 1908; at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Ind., on military map work, Nov. 13, 1908, to March 4, 1909; at Military Tournament, Toledo, Ohio. June 30-July 13, 1909" Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • "From 30 June to 13 July 1909, he was at the military tournament in Toledo, Ohio." -- What was he doing there? Attending or working in some role?
   • " At Camp A. A. Humphreys, he was a director of Military Training" -- More detail is needed on what projects he led, or what kind of work was taking place there at the time. Especially in the context of his DSM, those are typically awarded for pretty large-scale successes. The citation there will probably have some detail to use.

• Added that he "directed the training of 4,500 engineer officers and 20,000 enlisted soldiers."Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • Same goes for the last paragraph in military service. The Army was incredibly active during this time, so if there isn't detail about what he was involved in, there should be some explanation for what kind of work these commands wee engaged in at the time. At the moment, it reads more like a bullet-point list of assignments that don't establish his notability or what he did as a leader of these organizations.

• Ed!: How about the current state? I think people looking for more information on a certain one of his commands can go to that article... Additionally, there are gaps that just simply can't be filled because it isn't available on-line to me, but this is true with many other similar articles, and I feel it is as comprehensive as can be expected given the available information. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   No images at the moment. I see a few headshots of him around online, is there really none that can be pulled and used in the public domain? If not, at least some images of the assignments he had or something else to illustrate the article is necessary.

• Added USACE logo.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Other:

   Dab links, dup links and external links tools return no problems. Copyvio detector shows green.

On Hold Has a few things that are definitely needed to get the article GA ready, placing on hold pending a few fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 18:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

More comments Still thinking it could use some additional context to flesh it out. —Ed!^(talk) 23:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Some more things to add:

• Promotion to Captain in 1915 [1]
• Gap in 1938-1940 is an assignment to VI Corps which can be cited here [2]
• Found himself in the middle of a decent number of race-related relations in the military and pushed for slowing of black unit formation [3], guided policy for segregated garrisoning [4] Was involved in investigating the 1943 Camp Van Dorn Slaughter and wrote a report on it: [5]
• Also investigated treatment of Japanese American soldiers at Fort Riley: [6] And apparently Arizona: [7]
• Charged by Marshall to ensure training and maneuvers were adequate as had been a concern [8]
• Positions he pushed for as IG included more forecasting to prevent construction shortages as had been the case [9] was critical of psychological warfare units as they were being employed at the time [10] and helped impact early organization [11]

• Ed!: Would you look now? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

OK! Your edits are much appreciated! Looking around now, I don't see any further details online that I can immediately suggest to add, though I would think some things probably exist offline that could expand this one some day. With these additions, I do feel it's got in place sufficient context to explain the significance of his command and time in the role. I've added a few subheads mainly aimed at organization.

Based on these changes, I'll now Pass the GA. Thanks for your work on it! —Ed!^(talk) 03:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)