Talk:Blue discharge/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References needed:
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comment
The lead is too short, expand it.

Can you retrieve any images? A graph how blue discharge developed over time would be great. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there parts of the article that you believe are not adequately summarized by the lead? You gave a "?" for NPOV. Can you explain further? I have searched for images and have found none. I have also been unable to locate year-by-year statistics for blue discharges, which is what I assume you're suggesting would make a good graph. I don't think an image is going to be reasonably possible for this article. Otto4711 (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Still images are missing. Some photos of soldiers from this time could do it.
 * I do have some slight doubts about female servicemembers during WWII. In civilian jobs, yes, but as soldiers? Please check your sources and clarify whether there were female soldiers or whether this legislation also applied to civilians serving the armed forces.
 * The lead is too short, while you mention everything, the black media campaign and how the discrimination worked needs to be expanded. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, women served in the armed forces during WW2. They served in the Women's Army Corps, the WAVES and the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps. This regulation did apply to women serving in the armed forces but did not apply to civilians associated with the military regardless of sex. Otto4711 (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead is expanded. I'm unsure about the idea of including random photos of service personnel from the era as just having an image for the sake of having an image runs afoul of WP:NFCC, in particular the rule against including non-free content that doesn't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject. Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved observer who has Otto's talk page watchlisted, and who just found out about this article, I have to chime in here. I recently read the sections pertaining to women in the military from Allan Berube's book Coming Out Under Fire, which was used as a source in this article. There were women in the armed forces who were outrageously gay, finding them and separating or discharging them was not seen as significant as it was to find and separate men until after WWII, and they could be discharged if they admitted to being in a romantic relationship with another woman. The story about Eisenhower ordering his assistant to ferret out all the lesbians in the Women's Army Corps, to have her reply that her name would be first on the list is mentioned in several reliable sources, including the aforementioned book by Berube and Randy Shilts' Conduct Unbecoming. Does this answer your issues to female service members, or is there something more specific that you were wondering? --Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I don't know anything about the topic, but the article was an enjoyable read, unbiased and well written. The lead may be a bit short, but it is entirely too the point. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I arrived here after seeing the second opinion request on the GAN page. Here are my comments on the current state of the article and review: The lead could be a few sentences longer, but this is not a huge deal, and it does comply with the 1-2 paragraphs that WP:Lead recommends for an article of this length. Images are not required for GA status, and I agree with Otto that a random picture of a service man or woman would not really help the article. If an image could be found of an actual blue discharge (the paper itself that someone was issued) that would be a help to the article, but since images are not required for GA, that is rather a moot point.

Women did serve, and with distinction, during World War II. I have spoken with several women who served in the various branches of the US military during this war, and they would be insulted if you called them simply "civilians" - they served with honor and distinction in the war, alongside their male colleagues. They didn't often carry weapons, but they were members of the military. However, I may have missed something, but there seems to be no specific mention of women in the article. The article actually doesn't seem to make a distinction between blue discharges going to men and women, and it really shouldn't, unless there has been information published that these discharges went more to one gender or another. If there was a difference, then by all means mention it; if there was not, then no distinction should be made in the article between the genders, and from my reading, currently no distinction is made.

Overall I think this is a great article, and one that I would pass to GA status. I hope these comments help. I have this page watchlisted, so replies and questions can be left here. Dana boomer (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly have no objection to expanding the lead, but not just for the sake of expansion. If there are parts of the article that need to be summarized, please advise and I'll work on it. Otto4711 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll wait until you figured out what to do about the lead and then I'll let it pass GA. Thanks Dana. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that the lead as it stands serves as an adequate summary of the contents of the article and is of an appropriate length based on the size of the article. You mentioned two areas of expansion, how the discrimination worked and the black press crusade, and I expanded the lead in response. If you believe that there are still parts of the article that are not adequately summarized in the lead then I need to know what they are so I can add them. I don't agree with the idea of lengthening the lead just for the sake of making it longer. Otto4711 (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm good with the article as it now stands. I think the lead just looks short because there's no image squeezing it and making it take up more lines :) I would say to go ahead and pass the article, Wandal. Great article, Otto, and nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)