Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School of Advanced Military Studies/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 09:21, 21 April 2012.

School of Advanced Military Studies

 * Nominator(s): Airborne84 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the Featured Article criteria. Airborne84 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments leaning to oppose -- Cassianto (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "In June 1983, the first class of 13 U.S. Army students began in the basement of Bell Hall at Fort Leavenworth (image right)."
 * No need for the "image right" direction. As per WP:FILE
 * Removed. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "A second year of school away from the force to attend a school that had not yet proved its value in combat was risky. But the school's chance would soon come."
 * Too many "schools". The opening could be trimmed down, as at the moment it reads a bit muddled. The last line is redundant. It's almost like a teaser for what's to come.  Not needed.
 * Removed redundancies. I actually used the last sentence as a transition. It was meant to be a bit of a teaser, but in the sense of linking the paragraphs together. I removed it, but wonder if a different teaser might be better or if it's ok as is? --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "The "first test of battle" for SAMS graduates..."
 * Why the inverted comma's? If its a quote then it should be referenced.
 * For this and a few below, I quoted multiple sequential sentences at the end with a single, summary footnote. I suppose this might be confusing to some, and could even cause a break in the link if someone added a sentence in between. So, I replicated the note for both sentences here. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "With its first 'combat'"
 * again, why inverts?
 * SAMS planners don't typically engage in armed combat, so I initially used the quotes. They are now removed. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "They were expected to 're-engineer the decades of planning that had gone into the GDP [General Defense Plan] almost overnight'".
 * and again. If it is a quote then there is no reference.
 * As above, I replicated the source for the following sentence and attributed it to this sentence as well. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Would be nice to have a blue-link to Hurricane Katrina. Also, why the need for brackets?
 * Wikilink added; brackets removed.


 * "The United States Central Command requested planners from SAMS along with its "sister schools", the United States Air Force's School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS), which..."
 * "sister schools" - says who? Refrence for this?
 * I need to dig the reference back up for this. MTF. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the reference mid-sentence to attribute the words in quotes. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "During this period, SAMS also "continued to serve the Army at war as a 'reach' asset", helping deployed headquarters plan operations and contingencies."
 * More Un-referenced inverts. Unless you are using the reference at the end of the sentence. In which case the cite should be up near the quote.
 * The entire sentence is supported by the source—both the quoted words and the paraphrased words afterward. Short of making the entire sentence a quote (which I wanted to avoid), the note should go at the end of the sentence. If you have another suggestion here, I'd be happy to hear it. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "SAMS students from the 2002 and 2003 classes participated as "reach" planners in the preparations for the invasion of Iraq, as well as the "post-hostility plan for the occupation of Iraq"
 * again here
 * Again here the source supports both the quoted and paraphrased words. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Stopping for now. These quotes/inverts really need to be fixed, as they are occurring in nearly every sentence. I will carry on when you have caught up.
 * Thanks for the comments. I appreciate it. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose from me at this time, as I think it's current FAC is a little premature. Cassianto (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your fixes, however I have since gone through the article and have totalled a further 18 issues. I don't think FAC is the place to fix these problems and I agree that a thorough PR is needed.  Im sure with a decent PR, it could turn into a good little article.
 * I understand. Since you totaled 18 further issues, would you mind recording them here or on the article's talk page? I'd certainly appreciate it. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * done. See the article's talkpage. -- Cassianto (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. Given the topic, it might be helpful for you to try Military History A-class review, or a peer review before coming to FAC. Here are some specific concerns:
 * Some unsourced material - for example, "SAMS' leaders view..." should include a citation to where these leaders said this
 * Manual of Style editing needed - WP:OVERLINK, don't begin section headings with "The", etc
 * Tone problems, ex. "continued to morph to meet the demands of a changing world"
 * Very heavy use of quotes, at times to the detriment of flow
 * Coverage. Given that this is about an educational institution of sorts, we would expect to see it cover things like the physical campus (which you have pictures of, but not really much text)
 * Images: File:Combined_Arms_Research_Library_in_Eisenhower_Hall,_at_US_Army_Command_%26_General_Staff_College_(Fort_Leavenworth,_KS).jpg is tagged as lacking author and date information, and you should use the Army-specific template for Army images
 * Sourcing: formatting issues (ex. publications should always be italicized), missing information (ex. Bower 2011 is missing publication/publisher), generally inconsistent formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! I'll pursue a peer review. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I don't want to pile-on, but this article currently doesn't meet the FA criteria, and would take a reasonable amount of work to get there. I agree with Nikki's suggestion about seeking comments through the military history project, though I don't think that the military history A-class criteria are met. My specific comments are:
 * Most of the article's references are to public relations products produced by the US military, many of which are directly related to the institution. These obviously aren't neutral.
 * Related to this, the article reads like something written by the military and contains no criticisms of the institution or its products. The graduates are only associated with successes for the military.
 * As an example, the article states that "SAMS students from the 2002 and 2003 classes participated as "reach" planners in the preparations for the invasion of Iraq, as well as the "post-hostility plan for the occupation of Iraq"." - given that this planning is widely regarded as being deeply flawed, this suggests that there might be problems with what SAMS is producing. This should be discussed. Likewise, the invasion of Panama is not normally regarded as a military masterpiece.
 * The article doesn't really explain what it is that SAMS teaches and how this is delivered - when this is discussed its centred on quotes written in military jargon. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments. I think it would be reasonable to nominate the article for peer review as well, given the above comments. All of your comments make sense as well. The only one that concerns me as I continue to pursue improvements is the criticism section. I also considered that the article seemed a little one-sided in its coverage. But, I have simply not found any published criticism of the SAMS school or its students. The closest is historical concerns from the force about attending a school that hadn't yet proven itself and potentially damaging a career, which I covered in passing. If the only ingredients on hand to bake this cake are "vanilla", so to speak, how should that be addressed? Thanks again. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I always wonder how newcomers are going to respond to FAC, which can be a daunting process. That's a great answer, Airborne. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Wait, you're not a newcomer to FAC, you got Sentence spacing through ... great topic btw!


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.