Talk:United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 18:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to see an article on this topic coming up at GAR. Will read through and review fully in the next few days. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * "yet the Marine Corps delayed the formation of the WR until 13 February 1943." - "yet" is a strange word to use here. "but"?


 * "The law provided that members of the WR may be commissioned or enlisted in such ranks and ratings equal to the regular Marine Corps, and effective for the duration of the war plus six months." - "might be" (given the past tense previously). "was effective"?


 * "After attending Bryn Mawr College, Streeter was involved in health and welfare work." - is a bit confusing here in the lead, and probably isn't necessary


 * "were fairly stringent" - "fairly" makes the phrase a bit unclear; what is actually meant?
 * To be clear, removed the word fairly.


 * "WR members labored in the clerical field" - "labored" can have several different meanings. "worked"?


 * "The Corps delayed formation of the WR until 13 February 1943..." My advice would be to make this the beginning of a new paragraph; the existing one is quite long, and will read longer on the screen than it would do on a printed page.


 * "and "there was considerable unhappiness about making the Marine Corps anything but a club for white men"." - you'll need to attribute the quote (i.e. who is saying this)
 * Removed quote marks - quote is from the reference source and not an individual.


 * "But he later reversed himself, saying..." - when did he reverse himself? (NB: if it's not around 1943, I'd move the quote to a more relevant section, to keep the historical narrative intact)
 * The item is also under the section titled Women of the WR. It’s placed in the lead summary because it is notable.
 * The reader still doesn't know when he reversed himself though; if it didn't happen in 1943, when did he change his mind? If he changed his mind in 1945, for example, it's odd to place this in the background section of the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It now reads: Before the end of 1943, however, he had reversed himself, Pendright (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "And there were many of them, including: Femarines, WAMS, BAMS, Dainty Devil-Dogs, Glamarines, Women's Leatherneck-Aides, MARS, and Sub-Marines. " As written, it is unclear who were putting these forward / using them. I'd also advise against starting a sentence with "And..."
 * It now reads: Despite Holcomb’s dislike for nicknames, several of them surfaced for the WR, including ...


 * "Ruth Cheney Streeter" - this section is very long when presented as a single paragraph, and badly needs splitting up.


 * "was named the first director of the WR; commissioned a major " - unclear if the semicolon is correct here?
 * Wikipedia’s Manual of Style refers to the Chicago Manual of Style as another reference source. In it, the Chicago opines that the semicolon’s most common use is between two independent clauses not joined by a conjunction.


 * " She was described as confident, spirited, patriotic, and a principled person, all qualities she had demonstrated. " - who described her? Also, unclear whose judgement the "demonstrated" is coming from.
 * It now reads: In the Free a Marine to Fight publication, Colonel Mary V. Stremlow (Ret. MCWR) described her as confident, spirited, patriotic, and a principled person, all qualities she demonstrated.


 * "all the dirty work" - quote needs attribution
 * It now reads: Her plane was used to fly missions, Streeter recalled, but she was unhappily, relegated to doing … "all the dirty work".


 * "The qualifications for women who wished to become members of the WR were quite stringent"
 * To be clear, removed the word quite.


 * "The wardrobe of the WR was a matter of genuine importance to the Marine Corps..." - this read a bit oddly to me. Why "wardrobe" and not the more conventional "uniform"? And was there any reason think that the Marine Corps wouldn't have an interest in their own uniforms?
 * My dictionary describes wardrobe as an entire collection of clothes.  As for your other comment, I'd assume no. I believe the corps’ circular of 1943 points to the pride of wearing a Marine Corps uniform.
 * Most literature appears to talk about Marine Corps uniforms, rather than their wardrobe though. On the second point, if there's no reason to think that the Corps wouldn't be interested in their uniforms, then I'm not sure why the article makes such a prominent reference to it being "genuine" - I'd just remove the point. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It now reads: The uniforms of the WR were a matter of importance to the Marine Corps, Pendright (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "along the lines of the men's uniform." > "mens' uniform"?
 * Now reads "similar to"


 * "a Khaki trench coat" - "khaki"?
 * It is a fabric of a dull brownish-yellow in color, made of strong cotton and used especially by the military.


 * "Slacks of covert material were worn for certain duties" - I'm not sure I know what "covert material" is
 * Covert cloth is a rugged fabric. It is woven in a twill weave and usually of two colors. Originally, wool, worsted, or a wool/silk blend was used, but covert can be made from manufactured fiber or in a blend with wool or cotton.
 * Given that covert has several meanings, would advise linking to Covert coat to avoid any confusion. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pendright (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "The WR officer candidates first trained " - unclear if this means that at first they were trained at Smith College, but later some began their training at Mount Holyoke, or if it means they began their training at Smith, and then later in their training went to Holyoke. The "branching out" doesn't necessarily help I think.
 * It now reads: The WR officer candidates trained at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, a branch of the Navy’s Midshipmen’s School for women officers at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts.


 * "On 13 March 1943, the first group of 71 Marine officer candidates arrived at the Midshipmen's School, Mount Holyoke College." as per previous, I couldn't work out what the "first" meant here
 * With the correction of the previous sentence, the first is accurate.


 * "Cadets who completed the eight-week course " - is this the same as the four-weeks previously mentioned? Unclear.
 * The eight-weeks was the length of the course. Candidates entered the program as privates. If after four-weeks they met all requirements they became cadets, and remained in the program. Those who did not were separated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:D446:A500:49D:8885:FE51:4A17 (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)  Forgot to sign in! Pendright (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "interior guard" - I'm not very clear on what this means (guarding the interior of buildings? guard duties in the interior of the US?)
 * Interior Guard: to preserve order, protect property, and enforce regulations within the jurisdiction of the command.
 * You'll need to explain this in the article, as most readers won't know this. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pendright (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "WR personnel observed demonstrations..." - does this mean that they weren't trained to use the weapons themselves? If so, worth spelling this out.


 * "Assigning jobs in occupations that women had never held before was a daunting task" - for who? (unclear who did the assigning)
 * Added placement personnel


 * " Director Streeter" - why Director, and not Colonel? (unless there's a specific reason, would expect this to be consistent)


 * "might necessitate a trip back to the states" - for non-US readers, would suggest "back to the mainland" (most readers will think of Hawaii as a state)


 * "Colonel Towle" - you then give her full name later in the paragraph...
 * corrected


 * "the second director of the wartime WR" - I don't think I understand the distinction here. Why isn't she simply "the second director of the WR"? (similarly for the third)


 * "Women of the WR..." - this section seemed really odd. The first paragraph looks like it should really be in the recruitment section above; the "A few of their comments are listed below, showing how they coped with life in the military..." bit then feels strange; it is unclear why they were selected - I don't think they're working well in this format.
 * <> The info relating to recruiting transferred to that section.Pendright (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <> Deleted info about how they coped with... Pendright (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <> Transferred image of Native American women to Camp Lejeune where it was taken. Deleted second image. Pendright (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <> Transferred info on WR casualties to the section on Assignments.
 * <> As a result of corrections made, only two paragraphs remain - both cf a congratulatory nature. Renamed section Recognition.Pendright (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "The women Marines of World War II received its share of accolades." - what does this actually mean?
 * Removed all such language. Pendright (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "One stood out more than any other," - stands out to whom?
 * Removed all such language. Pendright (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "it was the uncomplicated words of General Holcomb" - I'd lose the "uncomplicated"; you need to date this remark.
 * Your comments seem to suggest that this section is unnecessary and should probably be scrapped, with any useful items placed elsewhere. In any event, I’d appreciate your thoughts before proceeding. Pendright (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comments seem to suggest that this section is unnecessary and should probably be scrapped, with any useful items placed elsewhere. In any event, I’d appreciate your thoughts before proceeding. Pendright (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * I'd query whether the section labelled "Ruth Cheney Streeter" might be better retitled "Leadership"? (which would be more in keeping with equivalent articles on men-only units etc.)


 * "Mrs. Ruth Cheney Streeter" and similar examples - as per the MOS, these should be "Ruth Cheney Streeter" etc.


 * "it did not engender the famed Marine esprit de corps that was expected" - I'd lose the "famed" here, it feels a bit OTT


 * " What did not change from the time at Mount Holyoke and Hunter was the shoddy behavior of the drill instructors towards the women." - worth looking at a more neutral alternative to "shoddy", e.g. "hostile".


 * See also section - you need to scrub these links to make sure they're not being used above (some certainly are)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * "and soon won over most of their detractors" - the cited phrase in the main text is "won over many of their detractors" ("most" not being the same as "many")
 * Many


 * "p. 88–89" - you have a few "pp"s missing in places.

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * The lead needs to mention the demobilisation of the WR. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The lead also needs to tell the reader how large the WR was.


 * Worth having a look at "Underdogs: The Making of the Modern Marine Corps" by Aaron B. O'Connel, Harvard (2012) (should on Google Books). He highlights that during the war, most male Marines wouldn't have come into contact with the WR (due to where they were all posted), and draws out a bit more about the immediate anti-female response to the WR's integration in 1948.
 * Thank you for bringing Underdogs to my attention.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Broadly neutral, as far as I can tell from the sources. I'm conscious that most of the sources seem to draw directly or indirectly on the first Director's memoirs though. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * File:Ruth Cheney Streeter.jpg needs a fair use rationale. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll need your help on this one.
 * I'm still in doubt about this, so I'm asking for your help! Pendright (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For help, I’ve consulted two long-time editors on the matter: they believe the image is in the pubic domain. Pendright (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing the article. Except for questions about the Women of the WR section and the fair use of the Streeter image, I believe I have responded to all deficiencies noted, questions asked and comments made. I look forward to your reply. Pendright (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone! What is the status of this review? It looks like no progress has been made in the past couple of weeks.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 03:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I’ve just finished responding to your most recent set of questions/comments posted 14 January 2018. I believe I’ve touched all the bases you were concerned with, except for the Ruth Cheney Streeter image. I hope you can find the time to assist me with this! Your review was tough but fair. I leaned some things from it, thanks.Pendright (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * With my response to your Streeter image comment, all things asked have been answered. I look forward to answering any further questions you might have. Pendright (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, a decision will soon be made on this GA review. Someone is trashing the article with things that are not relative to it. My note on the talk page explains why WW II is the subject here, not WW I.  Pendright (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)