Wikipedia:Peer review/WAVES/archive1

WAVES

I've listed this article for peer review to help determine whether or not it is, or could become, a valid FAC candidate. The article was promoted to A-class on 17 April 2018. Thanks, Pendright (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of amending the above request to read as follows: I would appreciate any questions, comments, or suggestions that could lead to the improvement of this article. Thank you. Pendright (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, Pendright, I'm sorry this peer review doesn't seem to be attracting much attention. I have taken another read through and will offer a few minor comments to try to help out: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• the authors describe Chung and her involvement. "... Dr. Margaret Chung: Not sure about the ellipses at the start of a sentence here. It might be best to add a colon to the previous sentence and join the quote to it

Removed (unnecessary) ellipses at beginning, added colon to join sentence and quote Pendright (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• On 18 March 1942 he did just that ...": I'm not sure about the closing quotation mark and ellipses here. Are these typos?

Removed (unnecessary) ellipses at the end, replaced with full stop. Unless I’ve missed something here, the quotation marks at the end finish the long quotation that began with, "Dr. Margaret Chung of San Francisco … Pendright (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I have adjusted the quote marks per MOS:DOUBLE for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Quotes within a quote, I’ll add that to my toolbox – thanks! Pendright (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• "File:Eleanor Roosevelt cph.3b16000.jpg": probably should look into the article, so I would suggest right aligning this image. To offset this, it might be possible to move down (and left align) "File:Ada Louise Comstock, 1923-1943 (13083782855).jpg"

Done - Pendright (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• He did not want women in the Navy because it "would tend to break-up American homes and would be a step backwards in the progress of civilization." Is this a direct quote from Knox? If not, I'd suggest it be attributed in text. For instance, "According Goodson, Knox did not women in the Navy because..."

No, it was David I. Walsh and it is a direct quote. The text reads as follows: The Senate Naval Affairs Committee was opposed to the bill, especially its chairman – Senator David I. Walsh of Massachusetts. He did not want women in the Navy because it "would tend to break-up American homes and would be a step backwards in the progress of civilization." Pendright (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. I'd suggest adding a citation at the end of the quotation then that makes this clearer, e.g. "Knox cited in Goodson p. 110". I have added this for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m confused! The quote is attributed to Walsh, not Knox? What am I missing. Pendright (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion, I've adjusted this now to "Walsh cited in...". Not sure how I got that wrong. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the fix - Pendright (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• It was apparent that women would eventually be allowed to serve in the Navy: the question was, in what form? It was apparent to whom? Also, I would suggest removing the question here as it seems a bit informal.

Now reads: It was apparent to the Navy that women would eventually be allowed to serve in the Navy. The quandary for them was how to administer a woman's program, yet fashion it to its own liking. Pendright (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I tweaked this a little more to remove the redundancy of saying "the Navy" twice, and to make it clearer when this took place. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Pendright (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• organizations; legally suggest replacing the semi colon with a comma here

After reading the entire sentence again, it strikes me as too long, if you agree any suggestions for splitting it up? As for the semi-colon vs. the comma, I have no problem with a comma – but I would like to know you’re rational. Pendright (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As a subordinate clause it doesn't quite work grammatically, IMO. The semi colon would work if it read "organizations; legally, this kept them" rather than "organizations; legally keeping them..." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Replaced with comma, thanks for pointing out that it is subordinate! Pendright (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• official usage until the 1970s.": I couldn't see the original opening quotation mark in this sentence

Removed ending quote mark - Pendright (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Thank you for the review and interest - Pendright (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• • @Dank and Fifelfoo: G'day, do either of you have any suggestions that might help Pendright with taking this to FAC? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
    • acknowledged. I'll run this through my FAC review template and post in a section below. I'd love to see this article's topic at FAC and the article as FA! Fifelfoo (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm going to pass on this one, AR. - Dank (push to talk) 10:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, no worries, Dan. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing Reviewing in progress, Fifelfoo (wait til I'm finished to respond?)

Reading for: 1b weighting, 1c(completeness, sourcing, HQRS, historiography, PRIMARY/TERTIARY use, "white myths," class / gender / colour query, plagiarism style check, plagiarism spot check [3, online only]), 1d neutral, 2b weight & structure, 2c citation check Fifelfoo (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• 1a: style
  • "The director of the Bureau of the Budget said no, but would agree to the Navy adapting legislation similar to the WAAC" This reads like you've close paraphrased an oral history. "said no" tends towards unencyclopaedic?

Replacement, opposed his idea -Pendright (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• • ems and ens checked, one em out of style in external link title. External links need fiddling into style anyway

@Fifelfoo and AustralianRupert: Thank you both for your responses to my query. By way of explanation, I addressed my query to Rupert because he has been like a mentor to me (unbeknown to him), and it was not done out of any disrespect to you, Fifelfoo. As for the external links, the one under discussion seems more consistent in application than many of those I’ve checked. Technically, this may not make it right, but the mixture out there seems to be a generally accepted practice. Generally accepted is usually defined as general agreement on or acceptance of certain practices or attitudes. By default, then, this mixture has become the standard, at least in practice for Wikipedia and for most of its reviewers. So much for my unsolicited opinion! Pendright (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• 1b: comprehensive (weight)
• 1ca: Research completeness
• 1caa: what are the major sources, their dates, their use structure
• 1cab: where are the HQRS used, and the lower QRS? Check whether analytical claims are cited against seminal HQRS?
• 1cb: Was there any historiographical debate WEIGHTY to include? Historiography section
• 1cba: Military science section
• 1cc: Checked for appropriate use of PRIMARY TERTIARY sources. Appears good. / Issues:
• 1cd: One problem identified in wikipedia is the sanitisation of articles, often by not-reflecting HQRS consensus / scholarly consensus. This can be called "white myths" or "Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht". The problem areas in this article could be: ; ; and, . When you were reading did any of these emerge in the sources as weighty?
• 1ce: A similar problem is blindness to the major categories of social history. Based on your reading of the HQRS consensuses do you feel the article appropriately covers class / gender / colour // ethnicity // nation // race // indigenous issues? In this article I'm particularly thinking of: ; ; and, .
• 1cf: Plagiarism style check
• 1cg: Plagiarism spot check [3, online only]
• 1ch: Spot-check if claims are in sources [10?]
• 1ci: search for seminal texts, see if included
• 1d: neutral
• 1e: stable
• 2b: When you developed the article's structure and weight what HQRS literature inspired the article's consensus?
• 2c: citation check for consistency
  • lmftfy: "Hancock p.70" => "Hancock p. 70"

Fixed - Pendright (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• • style: Goodson p. 116 versus MacGregor, pp. 74–75

Fixed-Pendright (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• • you'll need to work on your citations style
    • lmftfy: {{cite book |last=Collins|first=Winifred Quick Captain, U.S. Navy (Retired) with Herbert M. Levine …}} => {{cite book |last=Collins|first=Winifred Quick (Captain, U.S. Navy (Retired))|other=with Levine, Herbert M. |…}}

Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• • • {{cite book |last=Ebert |first=Jean & Hall, Marie-Beth …}} => {{cite book |last1=Ebert |first1=Jean |last2=Hall |first2= Marie-Beth …}}

The cite format seems in step with common usage. Pendright (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• • • lmftfy: external links

Wikipedia’s main page (7/26/18) Featured article was titled, Cooperative pulling paradigm. Interestingly, its External links section is another hybrid. This is a new FA with several such links, yet it does not reflect use of any of the customary templates, such as cite book, cite web, or cite journal, etc. Pendright (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• 2ca: p. pp. are consistent
• 2cb: No instances of too long a page range
• 3: I don't do media copyright checks.
  • This quote is very long, " Dr. Margaret Chung … On 18 March 1942 he did just that." Consider a blockquote. It also has an extraneous space at the start of the quote.

Now a block quote - Pendright (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• 4: No need to spin out sub-articles, good length.

@Fifelfoo:Whether or not the PR is complete, thank you for your participation. During its course, I have made certain assertions, believing this was a form where differed views could be deliberated over. If you find my belief to be incorrect, you have my apology. Pendright (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• I did a little copyediting, down to Recruiting. As always, feel free to revert. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit work done so far. Now, I have an excuse to ask you about a grammar situation that has troubled me from time to time.

According to Hoyle, adding “ing” to the ending of a verb changes both the meaning and the function of the verb. In some cases, it causes the verb to act as a noun or adjective, and in others, it changes the tense of the verb.

Case in point: one of your edits to this article changed the word explained to explaining. In this case, did a past tense verb become a present tense something else? Grammatically, does it matter? Thanks! Pendright (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Are we talking about this? "to write the president's wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, explaining their objections to the WAAC legislation." What's the alternative? "having explained"? That doesn't sound right. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is mentioned at participle; search for "Looking at the plans". - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe you provided an answer to each of the questions I posed. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)