Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Jacob L. Devers

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Jacob L. Devers edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Jacob L. Devers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The second most senior general in Europe in World War II remained poorly known (and his name frequently mispronounced - it's Dev-ers not Deev-ers) for decades. Suddenly, he has two biographies. And now a good Wikipedia article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: fantastic work, as usual. Just a few nitpicks from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "1909–1949" --> "1909–49" per WP:DATERANGE;
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Jacob L. Devers portrait.jpg": licence looks fine to me, but I suggest adding author, publisher and date information to the source field on the description page.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:USA-Benicia-75mm Field Gun Model 1897-1.jpg": possibly needs a freedom of panorama tag also, per this: [1];
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably same as above for: "File:Canon de 155mm GPF 3.jpg";
  • same as above for: "File:- Flickr - Joost J. Bakker IJmuiden (4).jpg";
  • "File:M26Belgium.jpg": probably needs a FOP tag for Belgium, but that could be problematic per this: [2];
    What for? There is no building or artwork in the picture. Just a PD tank. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    G'day,"File:M26Belgium.jpg" has a large building in the background (maybe a warehouse?). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the Belgian Army Museum. My understanding is that the law is the same as in France. It is okay if the building is incidental to the photograph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I must be reading the Commons FoP page incorrectly. Should be fine then. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Freedom of Panorama": "Some countries, such as France and Belgium, do not have global permission for making images of an artistic creation, like a piece of architecture or sculpture, in public spaces and allow images of copyrighted works only under "incidental inclusion" clauses. In France the authorisation of the author, but not of the owner, is thus required if the piece is not just used secondarily or as a background on the image but intentionally or as its central and essential motif." Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Leese, Devers and McCreery.jpg": licence looks fine to me, but the image quality might be enhanced by cropping out the large black spot in the corner;
  • "File:Eaker, Cannon, Devers and Larkin.jpg": licence looks fine, but as per the first image above, I suggest adding author, publisher and date information to the source field on the description page;
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for "File:Lieutenant General Jacob L. Devers.jpg"
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for "File:Trusctt, Patch and Devers.jpg" -- I have fixed the typo in the file name for you over on Commons
    Thank you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:315th Air Commando Group C-123 Providers in VNAF markings 1962.jpg": source url is now a deadlink
    Knowing the Air Force, it is probably only temporary. Added a wayback link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "France and Germany 1944–1945" --> "France and Germany 1944–45" per WP:DATERANGE;
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the service number (0-2599) appears to be uncited
    Sigh. Added a reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • From now on, I'm doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to Between the wars and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest, although I may wait until you get one or two supports first.
  • Technically, Between the wars is a violation of WP:HEADING since it's not a noun phrase, although it's a quite common violation. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tidied references, added a few isbn and oclc from Worldcat.Keith-264 (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • "In a major reorganization of War Department in March 1942...", should this be "In a major reorganization of the War Department in March 1942..."?
      checkY Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Despite some successes, the maneuvers..." suggest a minor reword here to "Despite some successes, the exercises" as the wording here is a bit repetitive (minor nitpick, suggestion only)
    • "that hampered the tank-infantry-artillery coordination...", consider instead something like "that hampered the coordination of tanks, infantry, and artillery.
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In particular, post-maneuver reports showed a vulnerability of tanks to antitank fire..." → "In particular, post-maneuver reports showed the vulnerability of tanks to antitank fire."
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a typo here "but here was persistent shortage of tank engines..."? Should it be "but there was a persistent shortage of tank engines..."?
      checkY Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikilink I Armored Corps
      checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Devers was neither the first nor the only general to embrace combined arms as the doctrinal solution...", the solution to what?
      checkY added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • some inconsistency in capitalization, consider "armored Divisions", vs "armored divisions" vs "Armored Divisions"
      checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some inconsistency in the presentation of dates, consider "March 1942" vs "March, 1942"
      checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • abbrev TO&E needs to be expanded, many readers wont know what it refers to.
      checkY Really? Gosh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Lyman Lemnitzer later recalled that Fifth Army staff feared that Devers would relieve every time the two met..." is there a missing word after "relieve"?
      checkY Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "British Lieutenant-General Frederick E. Morgan", hyphenation of rank here seems inconsistent with that adopted in the rest of the article.
      Used British spelling. Removed the hyphen. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the works in the references lack an isbn/oclc so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only) Anotherclown (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport - it's a good article, but I'm still slightly short of a support, some thoughts below:
  • "was a general in the United States Army who, during World War II, commanded the 6th Army Group in the European Theater. " - would "was a general in the United States Army who commanded the 6th Army Group in the European Theater during World War II." flow more naturally?
    checkY possibly. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when the idea of phasing out horses" - surely it wasn't the idea that met opposition, so much as the "the proposal to phase out"?
    There was no proposal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "heavily armed and armored tanks." - should there be hyphens here as compound adjectives?
    No idea. @Dank: Any ideas? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in that phrase; I haven't looked at the context. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "8 September 1887" but "November 11 armistice" - should really be consistent... (NB: the 11 November armistice wiki article uses the number first)
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His major task was the construction of new playing fields when there did not appear to be any available land." - "playing fields, despite there not appearing to be any available land"? (otherwise the "when" isn't quite right)
    checkY Changed to "where" Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "93 miles of roads" - needs a metric equivalent
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Tank Destroyer Centre was created" - is the capitalisation correct here? (the "A" suggests its not a proper name)
    checkY Capitalization is correct; spelling was wrong. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the railroad reached Lyon with a capacity of 3,000 tons per day. Devers pressed Gray for 15,000 tons." - metric equivalents needed
    checkY Tried to do this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he would only be able to supply Patton with 1,000 tons per day" - ditto
    checkY Even more tricky. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Devers hired a civilian secretary, Dorothy Benn, a widow whose husband, an Army Air Forces pilot, had been list as missing in action in New Guinea in 1943 and was presumed dead until his body was found in 1957." - the second half lives oddly here, as you don't find out why it is at all relevant until several sections later. Could the bit about being a widow etc. go down to the last paragraph of "Retirement and post-military career"?
    I think it works here, which is chronologically correct.Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth noting that when I was reading it, I did a quick "search this page" to find out why we were going into such detail about Benn's missing husband... I'd got no idea as a casual reader what the significance was. The next time she gets mentioned it was to be promoted to being his assistant, and it wasn't until the third mention that it explains they eventually get married. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that would be the case, but the point is that they knew each other for many years. It also provides another example of Devers generosity towards veterans and their families. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He hired an African-American couple, Curtis and Beatrix Murphy, as handyman and cook." - are their racial origins relevant to the article? We don't mention any one else's race or ethnic origins in the article that I can see.
    checkY Okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB: I agree with the comment above that the building in File:M26Belgium.jpg is de minimis. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Jacob_L._Devers&oldid=696829234"