User:CarricoHayden08/sandbox

Ideas for articles
US Military History

History of specific units

History of specific weapons

Missouri University of Science and Technology - Project myself and Tyler Sanzottera are taking on

WikiEdu Partner Project - Missouri University of Science and Technology
Tyler and I wanted to take on the University's page because we noticed that their is a significant chunk of students being marginalized or not mentioned at all. Many student design teams are left out, the Thomas Jefferson residence hall is not mentioned at all, and there is a general lack of good organization. I personally want to add to the history of the buildings on campus, as well as the ROTC programs we have here on campus.

Old Chemistry Building
Built in 1885, the Old Chemistry Building was the second building on campus after the Rolla Building. The Old Chemistry Building burned to the ground in 1969.

Shrenk Hall
Originally known as the New Chemistry Building and built in 1940, Shrenk Hall is home to the Chemistry and Biological Sciences departments.

Military Service
Military service has long been a tradition at the college. Beginning with the American Civil War, students and faculty have served in all major American conflicts.

Civil War
Three individuals: James Abert, George D. Emerson, and Robert W. Douthat served in the American Civil War and as faculty.

World War One
When the United States entered WWI in April, 1917, a total of 65 members of the university, students and faculty, entered into the service for First Officers Training Camp. Almost half of the enrolled student population was involved in the The Great War in some capacity or another, as the total enrollment was 186, down from 301 students. In total, nine men from the university made the ultimate sacrifice. Two men received the Distinguished Service Cross from General John J. Pershing. One man, H. F. Allison, is credited with the first shot fired in France from a member of the American Expeditionary Force.

In Between Years
In 1920, the college started its Reserve Officer Training Corps. An integral part of university life, at least half of all students made ROTC a part of their curriculum in from 1924 to 1940. Of the 931 students enrolled in 1940, 534 were also ROTC Cadets. Two cadets from these inter-war years eventually made the rank of general. These two were Byron E. Peebles and Walter P. Leber, from the classes of 1936 and 1940 respectively.

WWII
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, MSM faced the same problem of students wanting to immediately enlist to help the war effort that the school faced in 1917. The 1941-42 administration, including Curtis Laws Wilson, instead encouraged the student body to finish their training as that would make them more useful to the military.

Peer Review by K8shep (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Great job so far! You do need more than just one source. The Forged in Gold is a great source, but there are more out there. I wonder if you've looked at the State Historical Society for anything? They have a branch in our own library. Also, Dr. Huber did an article about the end of the Freshman fight after the 2nd World War. The story goes, freshmen and sophomores used to have a big free for all fight at some point during the year, and the sophomores usually beat the freshmen pretty good. Until the mid-40s that is. You had a bunch of combat vets around the age of 22-25 coming in on the GI Bill, and they were freshmen. That first year, the sophomores got their butts handed to them, and that was the end of that.

Good additions and I think you'll add a lot to the page. Just get some more sources for your additions!

Peer Review Reply
I've got plenty more sources loaded up in my browser I've been keeping open for the past month, do not fear. I definitely plan on building up these sections, and I want add one more about Harris Hall. It's actually incredibly frustrating trying to find sources about the origins of the buildings on campus. The State Historical Society seems like a great idea to fix that issue, I actually forgot it was there. I only used it once in class for Dr. Dewitt and it actually didn't seem super helpful. Maybe it'll be better the next time around.

Sources:
Forged in Gold - http://merlin.lib.umsystem.edu/record=b13574591~S5

MSM Alumnus (1974) - https://issuu.com/clwilsonlibrary/docs/msma_1974_12

History of the University of Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy, 1871-1946 - https://issuu.com/clwilsonlibrary/docs/history_of_msm_compressed_

War Records (1920) - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435004766770&view=1up&seq=5

UM-Rolla: A History of MSM/UMR (1983) - https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/university_history/3/

Article Evaluation: History of the United States Army

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Nothing seemed like it wasn't at least relevant to the Army, so that's good. What distracted me was that there was a breakdown of what units were where in the years 1989 and 1990, but nothing else to describe years before or since. I thought that this was bizarre and could probably be it's own page as it takes away from the history of what those units may have been a part of.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * It didn't seem that the article was leaning any one way or another, but at times the structure and focus is skewed. The 21st Century begins with 9/11, which is of course a huge event, but completely cuts out 21 months of history.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The 90's are essentially overlooked with the exception being The Battle of Mogadishu, and the 21st Century doesn't seem to include anything past the Invasion of Iraq in 2003. There is an abundant amount of information about WWI and WWII but I wouldn't say they're overrepresented. They serve as the building blocks for our society today and deserve the attention they receive in the article.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes the links work, and the information does support the claims in the article. A few of the citations led to the book where I have to manually flip to the page that is cited.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * No. That's the flat answer. Facts that are cited with appropriate and reliable sources are few and far between. The Introduction, maybe in part to the fact that it is the Introduction, has a single citation in it. From what we learned in class, that doesn't seem like nearly enough. Part of the problem is that some citations are accredited to actual books without links, so it would be impossible for me to fact check unless I went to a library. As if that would happen, right?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * There's a couple of things that are out of date, estimated death totals and such. Anything missing? Yeah, the last 20 years of history. The article essentially stops after 2003.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Legitimately not a whole lot of talk going on on this page. The last time anyone said anything was 2017, which would explain why we're missing such a huge portion of our recent history. Most of the Talk Page is a bot who archives things, and another guy talking about semantics.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is start-class, and for good reason. It's part of the Military History project and the United States project.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This is not a topic that we've covered in class and we likely will not talk about.