Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David M. Shoup/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

David M. Shoup

Featured article candidates/David M. Shoup/archive1

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 15:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. —Ed!^(talk) 15:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

FN38, 69: page formatting
Check alphabetization of References. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both fixed. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Images: Not all images have alt tags (primarily in military ribbons)
Reword "legation guard" in Junior officer section. Was he a guard, or assigned as an officer to supervise the enlisted men who constituted the guard?

Otherwise leaning support. Very good work. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell

The lead is just right. The infobox and categories are fine. The prose is generally lively and engaging, and effectively draws upon multiple sources while producing a coherant narrative. Quite impressive. The article seems both complete and balanced. There are a few deficiencies, as detailed below.

Initial checks

Image check: Although I'm sure it's free, I don't believe File:William W. McMillan, Jr. and James E. Hill after Olympics Wins, 1960.jpg is validly released under a Creative Commons license. All other images are legitimately free and tagged correctly, with all necessary information provided. (I move the local images to the Commons and categorized them there.) Images are all relevant and used appropriately. Captions are all good.
Spotchecks. For cites 3, 4, 9, 28, 39, 49, and 75, I found the statements fully supported by the source, with no issues of close paraphrasing. But I do not find support for the statement "he also served as president of the 2nd Marine Division Association" on page 22 of Banning (cite 46).
Related to the above, I was not able to read page 33 of Jablon to verify reference 25, so I wanted to ask you to doublecheck this for me. This reference sources nearly an entire paragraph, from the pistol and rifle team winning a competition in around 1934, to observations of Japanese troops, to Shoup's lengthy illness, to his promotion to major in 1941. Is this all covered on that single page of Jablon? I just want to double check, since it seems like a lot of information.
Finally, you don't need two references to [25] in a row.

Organizational problems

I have trouble following the chronology of the "Commandant of the Marine Corps" section. The first paragraph describes Eisenhower's nomination, and mentions Shoup serving under other presidents. The second paragraph describes Shoup under Kennedy. There are dates to help me understand the timeline. So then in the subsequent "Leadership Overhaul" section, I assume we're describing something under Kennedy in 1963. The passive voice is used (Shoup "was chosen" while others "were considered") but it doesn't say who chose or considered, so I assume Kennedy. There are no dates. But then the second paragraph is back at Eisenhower, and I realize I've been misunderstand what's been going on. I would recommend moving everything in "Commandant of the Marine Corps" (above "Leadership overhaul") into their respective sections where the info is relevant. If not, you'll have to find a way to make it clear that this is all an overview, with "Leadership overhaul" going back in time to the beginning of his time as Commandant. But as I said, I think the info would be better incorporated into sections and arranged chronologically.
The "Later life and opposition to the Vietnam War" section is by far the longest, including eleven short (three sentence) paragraphs, and it feels like a list. Could it be divided into sections and/or re-paragraphed into a more flowing style?

Minor grammar and MOS issues

Overlinking: WP:OVERLINK advises against wikilinking "everyday words understood by most readers in context" and "the names of major geographic features and locations; languages; religions; [and] common occupations". The wikilinks are not useful in "maintaining high marks in French, English, physics and history", for example. It is unrealistic to think that a reader might read in this article that Shoup majored in mathematics and desire a link to the mathematics article to learn what math is. Please check throughout the article for wikilinks that are not useful.
Over- and underlinking: Cities are linked in the references, which I personally don't think is useful. But I'm certain it's not useful to link New York City three times, for instance. It would, on the other hand, be more useful to link to authors Edwin H. Simmons, James W. Douglass, and Spencer C. Tucker.
The English language gives us a lot of leeway in comma usage, and many usage guides will differ in when commas are appropriate in complex sentences. But most style guides would agree that commas are not needed (and are not recommended) after the following phrases in the article: "spread to include the military industrial complex", "but moved to Covington", "met Zola De Haven in his freshman year", "contracted a severe case of pneumonia", "had never previously considered a military career", "gave him command of the regiment", "he was struck by shrapnel in the legs", "was then assigned to the upcoming invasion of the Marianas", "returned to the United States in October 1944", "resistance from Marine leaders", "Commandant of the Marine Corps by President Dwight D. Eisenhower", "but Shoup declined", "a reputation as being extremely demanding", "Shoup transferred many senior officers", "and the election of Kennedy", "he had gained Kennedy's confidence", and "aggressive measure causing civilian casualties".
Some sentences in this article use a serial comma, and others do not. Since this is about an American figure, I would recommend consistently using the serial comma, but either using or omitting it is fine so long as your are consistent throughout the article.
- The serial comma is omitted in the first sentence of the lead.
- It's used in "overhauling fiscal affairs, logistics, and recruit training"
- Omitted in "in French, English, physics and history"
- Used in the sentence beginning "He drew up initial plans..." (but see the next main bullet point, below)
- Used in "government, business, and military leadership"
- Used in the sentence beginning "By December 1967, he had..."
Consider this sentence: "He drew up initial plans, was tasked with designating the landing beaches on Betio for the 2nd Marines, and oversaw some rehearsals at Efate." This is a list of three items, but the first and third are in active voice while the middle is passive. It would be better as "He drew up initial plans, designated the landing beaches on Betio for the 2nd Marines, and oversaw some rehearsals at Efate" or as "He was tasked with drawing up initial plans, designating the landing beaches on Betio for the 2nd Marines, and overseeing some rehearsals at Efate."
I don't know a lot about military ranking terminology, but is this sentence grammatical? "In August 1947, Shoup became Commanding Officer, Service Command, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific." Aren't some "the"s and "of"s necessary here? And how about the phrases "in the Office of the Fiscal Director, Headquarters Marine Corps" and "as Chief of Staff, Headquarters Marine Corps"? (I honestly don't know, but they look ungrammatical to me.)
The sentence beginning "Shoup was ordered by" would be smoother if it were broken up, with one sentence ending with "...of Hill's authority", and the next beginning "Shoup and Hill clashed..." (A semicolon would also work here, if you prefer.)
Regarding the Ribbon Creek incident, the paragraph uses "the incident" twice in one sentence. Rewording could make this a smoother read.
Consider this sentence: "He would later serve under the administration of John F. Kennedy from 1961 to 1963, and the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson." It would feel smoother if the years for his service under Johnson (just 1963, right?) were mentioned. (The sentence could also probably be improved through minor rewording, if you keep it... but with the recommendation in "Organizational problems" above, you may choose not to.)
The clause "Shoup was most called upon by Kennedy" is unclear. Was called upon most often?
This sentence should be reworded for clarity: "Shoup was chosen to replace Pate because of a view among Gates and other officials that the Corps was fraught with internal squabbling, alienated from the other services, and had a bad reputation gained from the Ribbon Creek incident."
This sentence has problems. "The 1960 Presidential Election and the election of Kennedy, saw a major change in military strategy with the adoption of the "Flexible Response" strategy, which saw a return to conventional military forces as a deterrent to nuclear war." First off, the 1960 election is the election of Kennedy. Second, no comma should be before the first "saw". Third, the election didn't really see a change (though it may have effected a change). Fourth, it feels akward to say something "saw" a change which "saw" a return, like there are multiple tiers of seeing.
Reword "Shoup testified before Congress, reiterating his 1966 speech, saying he felt..." Two clauses started with -ing words feels odd here.
Reword the multiple "met with" wording in "Shoup's opposition to the war was met with resentment from many of the other officers in the Marine Corps, and was met with criticism..."

Closing comment -- Not sure where Ed is as far as this nom goes but without responses it's certainly not moving forward, so will be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.