Talk:Schools at War/GA1

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 17:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this article has been waiting at GAN for long enough! —  Ghost River  17:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

 * Per MOS:US, whether "US" has periods in the acronym should be consistent throughout; there are no periods in the body but they are here in the lede
 * "thirty-two million" "32 million" per MOS:NUMERAL
 * "The office hower" "The office, however,"
 * Per WP:LEADCITE, information cited in the body does not need to be cited in the lede, and all information in the lede should be directly mentioned in the body
 * Their most important contribution was financial. POV, WP:WEASEL
 * "90%" "90 percent"
 * "motivated selling" "motivated sales"
 * Why is "bought" in quotes when sponsored can suffice?

Formation

 * Name the program in the first sentence
 * "larger five dollar" "larger five-dollar"
 * Link World War II here, as well as the Depts. of Education and the Treasury
 * Citation needed for the pamphlets

Purpose

 * Mention Anderson's name before his titles
 * No single-sentence paragraphs; I don't see why the line about the Slogan can't be the topic sentence to the following para

Operation

 * Keep "scrapbook" out of quotes if that's an accurate definition
 * savings books were provided which when filled held $18.75 in stamps which could be exchanged for a bond. A lot going on here, needs some commas
 * Sentence about the scrapbook at the end should be with other sentences about the scrapbook

Publications

 * "published a quarterly journal titled Schools At War (comma) which was distributed"
 * Rather than a bullet point list, have "Other publications included teaching aids, such as" and then list out in prose
 * Also, that citation should go at the end of the list

"Minuteman" flag

 * "ninety percent" "90 percent" per MOS:NUMERAL
 * "thirteen blue stars" "13 blue stars" per MOS:NUMERAL
 * Comma after "in the Los Angeles School District"
 * "a special insignia reading"
 * "first large city" "first major American city"
 * "ninety schools" "90 schools" per MOS:NUMERAL

Campaigns or promotions

 * Link the first instance of "jeep" to Willys MB, which is meant when discussing WWII jeeps
 * And then delink it in the second paragraph
 * "at a cost of $3,000"
 * "to indicate that it had been"
 * Many of these sponsorship details and costs strike me as undue trivia

Program posters

 * Delink Chicago per MOS:OVERLINK
 * "supplier to the US military" "supplier for the US military"
 * The first paragraph needs some sentence improvement for flow; right now each sentence is "Subject was/were X."
 * Not sure why "contributed" is in quotes
 * Once again, I think the bullet points can be turned into prose, especially with artists who contributed multiple posters, like Joseph Hirsch (who should only be linked on the first mention)
 * The citation for specific stamp values should be after the list, not before

Youth organizations, private schools, colleges

 * "Although the program reached millions of students through the schools" "Although the program predominantly reached its participants through their schools,"
 * Cut out "and others"; it's implied that "including" is a non-comprehensive list
 * "In addition to the nation's public schools, Catholic schools, the largest class of private schools in the US, in each of the 106 archdioceses across the country were included in the program." "In addition to public schools, Catholic schools, the largest class of private schools in the US, from all 106 archdioceses in the United States were included in the program."
 * Move the Catholic schools up before youth organizations so you have "public schools private schools  non-school organizations"
 * Also, combine the first two paragraphs so you have "successful unsuccessful"
 * "College teachers" "college professors"
 * Comma after the quote on citizenship
 * That quote is also pretty POV, insinuiating that professors were unpatriotic, a rhetoric that's been weaponized before

Results

 * "thirty million" "30 million" per MOS:NUMERAL
 * "to the states" "to the States"

Examples

 * Almost all of this section sounds like trivia; there are some grammar and MOS issues here as well, but I won't nitpick because I think almost all of this section can be excised. Any examples that are included should ideally have received more than local attention.

Analysis

 * The program was so successful for many reasons. POV, phrasing. Rephrase as "The Schools at War program was considered a success by..." and then add whom: the government? Historians?
 * "strong backing by" "a strong backing from"
 * I don't love, as a whole, that this section only has one source. Is it possible to get some other (non-governmental) opinions in?

General comments

 * Images are public domain or CC and are relevant
 * No stability concerns in the revision history
 * Copyvio score looks good, highest score is from attributed direct quote

The more I read of this article, the more unsure I am. Prose issues are easy to sort out, although I don't necessarily like the heavy use of bullet point lists when prose would suffice. My greater concern is with the extensive trivia, as well as the overuse of primary sources. While this information can be used for raw facts, that the only source used to determine whether or not the program was successful was... a publication by the very government that administered it, I find questionable. And in case my political beliefs are of concern here, I would say the same about any Analysis or Legacy section: a film director should not be the sole voice in determining the legacy of his product, an athlete's own words should not be used to determine the lasting influence of their participation in a sport.

At the end of the day, I am willing to leave this open for the customary seven-day holding period, at which point I would likely have a litany of other prose suggestions, considering the content will be heavily altered. If this is of interest to you, I will leave it open. Alternatively, I can fail this review, you can make whatever changes you feel need to be made (including potentially a WP:GOCE copyedit), and then re-submit for someone else to look at. Another alternative would be to ask for a second opinion, to which I would also be amenable. That being said, there tends to be an egregious waiting time for second opinions. Your choice. —  Ghost River  18:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , First thanks for taking to time to review this. I can go through and address the copy edits. But there is not much I can do about the use of primary sources. I was rather surprised that this program has not been well analyzed in the academic community. This was discussed before right here on the TP in a previous section. I found almost no mentions of it in any history books; it seems to have been quickly forgotten after the war ended. The only section of the article that really talks about the success of the program is the analysis section at the very end. That is based on a primary source, because, there is just nothing else to go on. I was cognizant of the source and kept it quite short, with a couple of sentences about the success and and equal amount about the failures. (The fact that negative aspects were in the source is an indicator of its neutrality). The last sentence (poor bond sales ratio) is really quite negative - I could expand on that more because it really is saying payroll bonds sales were a more efficient way to raise funds.
 * Since I have no more sources, I don't see that I can heavily alter much. I can make the c/e changes, and work on the Analysis section. If that's not going to be sufficient then maybe I will withdraw. On the other hand, the message on my TP said it was close to passing if the minor corrections were made. This is much less optimistic. MB 04:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , did you not get my ping? I see you have been active. I'm still waiting for a response. MB 01:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

More sources
I am a teacher, and it is difficult for me to find the time sometimes to write responses that require nuance during my brief free time. I was able to find contemporary analysis of the program in: Most of these have to deal less with the immediate economic successes or failures of the program and more to do with the impact of asking children to participate in war efforts at this level. Again, I will leave it up to you if you want to leave this nomination open to undertake the (potentially extensive) edits, withdraw, or ask for a second opinion. I also apologize for the talk page message; it's a bot-delivered template that is not always reflective of reality. —  Ghost River  18:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Warfare State
 * Pledging Allegiance
 * Mobilizing the Home Front
 * Children and War
 * School-based Savings Programs, 1930-2002
 * Girlhood

Availablility

 * Warfare State
 * Looks useful, available in local college library


 * Pledging Allegiance
 * Looks useful, available in local college library


 * Mobilizing the Home Front
 * Looks useful, available in local college library


 * Children and War
 * Mostly too general


 * School-based Savings Programs, 1930-2002
 * Potentially useful, called a "Working Paper", (RS?) Much of this paper is a fairly detail description of the program - not that much additional analysis.


 * Girlhood
 * Not sure how useful, available in local college library

Comment from Doncram
It is totally random that i just found my way back to this article today, maybe via an old AFC note on my Talk page about Daniels School. I was reading it and totally blown away by how much further it has been developed by User:MB. Wow. Then browsed this GA review, and see great comments by reviewers, and realize article was improved by thoughtful editing to respond to those comments. I am really amazed. I like how MB pulled together so much (lots of primary sources) to create such an insightful article. I know it is supposed to be bad to “synthesize” or otherwise engage in wp:OR in Wikipedia, but i think this work is a great counter-example. The synthesis really did/is creating knowledge. Seriously this is awesome and MB oughta get some huge award for this, and reviwers oughta get commended too. Thank you to all of youse guys! (Confession: i was to blame for creation of original, terribly incomplete/inadequate draft article.) Just wow. —Doncram (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Status query
GhostRiver, MB, where does this review stand? It has been a month since either of you posted here, and the article has only had a minor copyedit in the interim. Can this get nomination get moving again soon? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that MB was actively working on tracking down some of the sources provided. It's a bit more concerning seeing that many of my other comments have not been addressed (particularly with regards to converting bulletpoint lists to prose) and I am leaning towards failing the article if more work is not made soon. —  Ghost River  00:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, I made some of the c/e changes requested. But the bigger issue is with the additional sources suggested by GR that would round out the analysis section. I looked into those books and most of them may be useful. But they are not PD and/or available online. I would like to work on this more and further improve the article, but am not willing to physically go to a library to do so. So if GR feels more needs to be added from these kinds of source, which I believe he does, I think this will have to be withdrawn at this time. MB 03:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , we were updating this simultaneously. As I said above, going to a library is not something I have an inclination to do. MB 03:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If the nominator is reluctant to put the work in to improve the article, then I am inclined to mark it as a fail for now. Perhaps a different future reviewer would feel differently. It also does not imbue me with confidence that I have been casually misgendered. —  Ghost River  17:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * GhostRiver, it is quite clear that MB won't be making the improvements (additional sources) that you feel are necessary, so if it doesn't meet the GA criteria now, then go ahead and fail it. No need for this to wait any longer to be concluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. Failing now. Feel free to renominate at a later time. —  Ghost River  15:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)