Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smedley Butler/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 SandyGeorgia 05:13, 30 January 2010.

Smedley Butler

 * Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently passed an A class review, has had 2 peer reviews and I believe that it meets all the criteria for Featured article status. Kumioko (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * As a side note, a bit of overlinking going on here.. cancer, gastro-intestinal tract, dictattor, coal miner, nervous bbreakdown, plus a LOT of links to Philadelphi. Suggest culling some links so it's less a se of blue.
 * Done - I removed a few --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NOrmally I'd have done this, but couldn't figure out the template enough to do so, but your References should be alphabetical. Also, make your further reading citations consistent (last name first of first name first, and alphabetical also).
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I would consider moving "He is one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor, one of only three to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor, and the only person to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor for two different actions," out of the lead, unless that really is terribly significant, because the detail makes the eyes glaze over a little. I'd also say simply, "During his 34 years of service ..."
 * Done - I reworded it a little but this really is important --Kumioko (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 07:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Less blue in the lead; best not to link ordinary words
 * Done I removed a couple of the less needed ones. --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Haverford awarded him his high school diploma June 6, 1898" needs an "on".
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Butler had a daughter, Ethel Peters Butler, and two sons, Smedley Darlington Jr. and Thomas Richard." He did that without his wife's help?
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Too many Butlers did this and that. We know it's about Butler.
 * Done - More or less done I think. I eliminated a lot of the Butlers and did some additional work on the prose. --Kumioko (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still problems with this. Now he's called Smedley in several places, instead of Butler, and there are still instances of repetition, as though we don't know who the article's about e.g. "He was only 16 years old and lied about his age to receive a direct commission as a second lieutenant.[7] After three weeks of initial entry training, Second Lieutenant Butler was sent to Guantanamo, Cuba ..." This sounds as though "he" in the first sentence, and "Second Lieutenant Butler" in the second are two people. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 07:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some tidying needed here: "Butler climbed out of a trench to rescue a wounded officer. He was himself then shot in the thigh. A Marine helped the wounded Butler to safety, but was himself shot."
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The writing is a little list-like. Butler did this, Butler said that, Butler sailed here ..." Needs to be copy edited for flow so that it's more of a story. I'm also not getting a sense of the man, and who he was. It would be good if the editors could add why some of the issues matter, and what they tell us about the person, or what affect the experiences had on him, assuming that it's in the sources. We need to be told upfront why we should be reading about him.

--Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Done - I think I straightened some of this up but if you see anything else please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The prose still needs some work. This needs to be a flowing narrative, not a list of facts. And some of the material is clearly important, yet it's thrown in as though it isn't e.g. "He was diagnosed with a nervous breakdown in 1908, after which he received nine months sick leave. He returned home and worked as a coal miner in West Virginia and despite an offer of permanent employment, he returned to active duty in the Marine Corps." Oh by the way, he had a nervous breakdown. :) And "despite an offer of permanent employment": not clear what "despite" means here. Is being a coal miner a good thing, compared to being a Marine?  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 07:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - I reworded this a little. --Kumioko (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Related to the point above, this is confusing: "The first award was for his activities in the United States occupation of Veracruz, Mexico in 1914. However, the large number of Medals of Honor awarded during that campaign—one for the Army, nine for Marines and 46 to Navy personnel—diminished the medal's prestige. During World War I, Butler, then a major, attempted to return his Medal of Honor, explaining that he had done nothing to deserve it. It was returned to him with orders that not only was he to keep it but that he was to wear it as well." Are the first two sentences connected to the third? Can we say more about the third&mdash;it sounds interesting.
 * Done - I reword most of this paragraph but I think it flows better know. --Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think it may be worse than before:


 * "The first time he received a Medal of Honor was for his activities in the United States occupation of Veracruz, Mexico in 1914. There was en extremely high number of personnel for this campaign that received the Medal of Honor. The Army presented one, nine went to Marines and 46 were bestowed upon Navy personnel. This diminished the medal's prestige and World War I, Butler, then a major, attempted to return his Medal. He tried to explain that he felt he had done nothing to deserve it, but it was returned to him. When the Medal he was given orders that not only was he to keep it, but that he was to wear it as well."


 * SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 07:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's all for now. The article would really benefit from a copy edit to introduce more of a narrative, and to remove the repetition of the name. Also, ordinary words shouldn't be linked. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 01:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * More: Is there another lead image? This one looks away from the text. It's not a major issue, but it doesn't look good.
 * I will look around but I am not sure how long it will take. If I have to I will go to the USMC and get one. --Kumioko (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Major Butler later recalled that his troops "hunted the Cacos like pigs." This quote isn't in the ref that follows the para.
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This source is used eight times. Could the editors check that it's being used only for uncontentious stuff, because it's unlikely to be neutral; anything contentious should be sourced to it in-text, and a counter-balancing source found, or just a better quality one.
 * This gets most of its info from the 2 books I used as the main sources so I can dig through them and see if I can find were its at. I only used facts from this ref though and cut out all of the vebs and pronouns they used to make him larger than life though. --Kumioko (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's best sourced to the books. With these adulatory websites, it's not only a matter of cutting out the larger-than-life adjectives. They select information that makes him look good and leave out or minimize anything that doesn't, so they're better avoided. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 07:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "His exploits impressed then Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt, who recommended the award based upon Butler's performance during an engagement in which all 200 Cacos were killed, while one Marine was struck by a rock and lost two teeth." Needs to be rewritten to make clear it's the same engagement as in the previous sentences, and that this two-teeth injury was the only Marine injury, which is the point of mentioning it. Also then-Assistant, if you have to write it that way. Best to leave out "then," which is understood. Or FDR, who was XXX at the time.
 * "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service ..." Should be blockquote (or similar), no quotation marks, no italics.
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After "some sort of 'wild scheme' was contemplated and discussed," there are four ref tags. Would be better to combine these, or disperse them. Four tags in a row is untidy and suggests a sourcing problem.
 * I would say a little more about the Business Plot in the lead. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 02:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - I added more about the business plot to the lead
 * I think it needs a bit more:


 * "In 1934, he was involved in a controversial scandel when he alleged to the United States Congress that a group of wealthy industrialists had plotted a military coup known as the Business Plot to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The leaders of the plot had approached him to lead it but rather than do so he turned them in. After a long investigation and congressional admission that a plot was likely, no arrests were ever made."


 * I'm not keen in "involved in a controversial scandal": involved in a scandal doesn't read right, and all scandals are controversial. And was he just wrong, was he nuts, what was the story? Also "told," not "alleged to." SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 04:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done I reworded this a little more, I changed to controversial issue instead. --Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead possibly needs more about his generally controversial reputation. The Business Plot didn't come from nowhere; it wasn't an isolated example, it seems. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 07:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we have a link to the NYT article about the Business Plot?
 * Unfortunately I do not think it is available online, the newspaper is available for view (and I have a photo copy) at the USMC archives/research library on Quantico, the Library of Congress or at the Naval Research Center in DC. --Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NYT articles are always online. I just added a link to that one, but you should really link to all the articles you cite, if they're available. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 05:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You need a References section containing full citations for the sources you've cited.
 * I don't understand, whats wrong witht the references section I have know? --Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't contain all the sources. You need to list them all in the References section; see the FA criteria. I'm not sure why you would list some but not all. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 05:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just looked at your peer review for the A listing. It also complains about the way you've cited the sources, but you didn't change anything, even though the FA criteria explains what's needed. It makes things very confusing for the reader. The reader needs to be able to click on the note to see the short ref (at least), then should be able to check in the References section for a full citation. As it is, I'm having to hunt around on Google to find some of your sources. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 05:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I didn't really change anytyhing from the peer review is because the comments for the most part were due to the reviewers lack of knowledge about how to use the citation templates. I removed the hatnotes for the USMC and the DANFS and I split out the references into seperate sections. I really think it clutters up the article and adds unecessary sections but if thats what i have to do to get the article to pass FAC fine. I have reviewed several other FA biographies and several do it just the way I did it with the abbreviated notes in a top section and the the full reference for those abbreviatons in a seperate section below. All the references ARE in the references section, if not please show me one that is not and I will fix it. --Kumioko (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of your refs aren't there: the newspapers aren't there, and at least one book isn't. The citation issue has nothing to do with templates. This article is not well-sourced. Important material isn't sourced at all, sentences are unclear and don't seem to reflect what the sources say, and source material is difficult to find, because it's unclearly cited in several cases. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 06:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I didn't link to these are because I could not find a link for them, and in some cases the link doesn't show what I have referenced in the article because the extract on the net only give a couple of sentences or paragraphs of a page long article. If there is important material not sourced please give me an example. Again, if its unclearly cited I need to know whats unclear so I can fix it. --Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When you say the article incorporates public domain material from the United States Marine Corps and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, do you mean you've lifted material directly from those sources? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know I only used facts from those sites such as names, dates, events, etc. I don't think there are any lengths of text from them other than a couple quotes, and even then I do not believe the quotes came from them either. --Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, in that case you should just cite them as inline citations where needed, rather than the general disclaimers at the end. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 05:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I don't agree with it I removed the hatnotes. The hatnotes not only give the reader the knowledge that we got the info from those sites, but it also allows us editors to easily determine which article use that as a reference. By removing the hatnote it is far far more difficult to determine articles that use these references. This is also the reason for using the Cite templates. If we use the cite templates we can create bots, tools or scripts to fix problems, scan for specific refs, allow them to be linked to other sites, etc. Without using the cite templates, bots have noway to check them and fix problems, we cannot build scripts to look in the template to see what uses a specific reference (for example if the find a grave website shut down tomorrow we would have to fix all those broken links. If there in a cite we can easily find them, if they are not we have to search every page for a keyword. --Kumioko (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please find links for the newspaper articles you cite if they're online (even as a summary of the article), so that readers can easily check the citations. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 05:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm having difficulty finding the source for this:


 * "When the committee's final report was released, the Times said the committee 'purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true' and '... also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated'."


 * You cite the NYT, but the above doesn't seem to be in that article, or the one you cite before it (note 28). The Times ridiculed it, so far as I know. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 06:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What does this mean? "In its report, the committee stated that it was unable to confirm Butler's statements other than the proposal from MacGuire, which it considered more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports." SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 06:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is unclearly written, unclearly cited. I'm having to look for the newspaper articles myself on Google, because no links have been provided, though they do exist online (as abstracts). Not all the references are listed in the References section. Some of the material doesn't exist in at least one of the sources I've checked so far. It's not particularly well-written. The Business Plot (who called it that?) is not fleshed out enough, though it was a major issue. I'm sorry to oppose, but the article needs quite a bit of work. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 06:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to add to my oppose that the article appears not to be comprehensive or neutral. A Time magazine piece cited in the article gives details of several controversial situations Butler has been involved in. It says, "No military officer of the U. S. since the late, tempestuous George Custer has succeeded in publicly floundering in so much hot water as Smedley Darlington Butler," and goes on to list some examples. These seem not to be mentioned in the article.  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 19:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You say its unclearly cited, please give an example of an unclear citation? I linked to everything that I could find, I have copies of every book or reference here that is not linked to a site and as far as I know its never been a requirement that the reference "links" to an actual website, since most books are not in google. --Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not books, just newspaper articles. Where they're online, in whole or in part, it makes sense to provide a link. But these are the less important issues. The key issues are making sure everything makes sense and is well-sourced. And to make sure the inline citations are clear, and that they are all fully cited in the References section. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 15:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant to add that I'm happy to look at this again if some of the issues are dealt with, and if it gets a bit of a copy edit, and the references are listed clearly. I'm not writing it off by any means. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 06:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Time magazine article that you cite has a lot of interesting material about Butler that's not in the article.  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 15:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I reviewed this at Military History A-class, and stated then that the citations were not up to par for FA status. I still think this is true. The prose has improved considerably, and while it isn't great, it's better than it was and certainly better than many other articles on Wikipedia. I'd like to see it improved, but I wasn't prepared to fall on the sword over either of these problems at ACR. Kumioko, I really think you should go through your citations and create a real bibliography, especially since this is a requirement of the FA process. I'd be willing to reconsider this oppose if your Bibliography is created, and if your sources could actually be verified. I'd be happier to do it, also, if you work on the prose, or get some help in smoothing it out. It might be reasonable for you to withdraw this temporarily (without prejudice) so that you give yourself time to do this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your points and I think I have gotten some good feedback as to ways to improve this article (and some good help from editors such as yourself and Slimvirgin above) and although I am still unclear with what the problems with the references are I believe I have an idea of some things I can do to clean it up a bit (as well as remove some of the less used ones in favor of better references). Same with the prose. If you can give me a couple of days to address it rather than shutter the candidacy (especially since its typically frowned upon to resubmit in less than a couple months time). I believe I can address these problems and get this article up to par by this weekend in the hopes of swaying your vote the other way :-). Does that seem acceptable? --Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - I think I got the bibliography all created and I have done some additional work on the prose. I still plan on reducing some of the references, adding some more data to a couple of the thinner sections and some additional prose work. Please let me know if you see anything else that needs to be addressed.--Kumioko (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry, but this is just not up to the required standard. Problematic examples include:
 * By reading the information in the "First Medal of Honor for Veracruz, Mexico in 1914" section, there is absloutely no information on why Butler was awarded the Medal of Honor.
 * I will work on this and add a comment out here once I am done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While there is some information on why he was awarded his second Medal of Honor, the reader has little idea of Butler's personal actions that resulted in the award, so this needs to be expanded to describe his efforts in detail.
 * I will work on this and add a comment out here once I am done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - I think I expanded this to enlighten the reader on what he did enough know. I also reworded a few things to make it flow better. --Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In general, further detail is required on all of Butler's decorations in the prose, describing his actions as to why he was awarded the medals rather than just a bunch of medal citations lumped at the end.
 * I can do this for the Medals of Honor. the Brevet Medal and a Couple of others but it will be difficult to explain them all without treading into original research territory. Once I am done I will post something out here. --Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Very few of the medals listed in the "Military awards" section are referenced and should be. Also, I would say this section impinges on MOS:IMAGES in that it is presenting information visually as opposed to a written format and is unencyclopedic list/image cruft that does not need to be in an article.
 * I do not agree that the display of his ribbons are cruft although I will add references for them. --Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added some inline citations for this but I will add more in the next day after I read back through a a couple of references. --Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The prose could do with a copyedit as it is not quite up to the required standard for a Featured Article and is a little ackward in some places.
 * Could you give me an example of were it is awkward please? --Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Per MOS, images shgould not be aligned to the left directly under a level three subheading.
 * I will look through and try and find this but can you give me an example? --Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - I think I found all of them and fixed them. One image spills into the WWI section a bit but once I add some content to some of the sections above it it should balance out.--Kumioko (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks all and keep the comments coming. Even of the article doesn't pass due to too many opposes the more comments I get to improve the article the better the article will be and the more I will learn for the next submission. --Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to post a note out here that I have expanded, reworded and reorganized several sections on the article. I have also added several references and I have a couple more to add. I am going to be expanded 3 more sections in the next couple days, Central America, Vera Cruz and his timem in Philly as Directr of public service.  I am also going to try and add some more content to the Business plot section.  Please let me know if there are other areas that need to be expanded as well.--Kumioko (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, as mentioned above, you need more material about the issues Time magazine raised, many of which aren't in the article. Specifically:


 * "No military officer of the U. S. since the late, tempestuous George Custer has succeeded in publicly floundering in so much hot water as Smedley Darlington Butler. After a gallant career in all quarters of the globe with the Marines, General Butler was 'borrowed' by Philadelphia in 1924 to clean up that city's bootlegging. The hot-headed general resigned the following year, declaring that he had been made the respectable 'front' for a gang of political racketeers. In 1927 he made front pages again by preferring charges of drunkenness against a Marine colonel in San Diego, Calif, following a party at the colonel's home. Four years later General Butler himself was almost court-martialed for telling a Philadelphia audience that Benito Mussolini was a murderous hit-&-run driver. He was soon embroiled in a row with the Haitian Minister who was quoted as saying that a fort General Butler said he had captured in Haiti had never existed. After these highly embarrassing incidents, General Butler found it best to resign from the Marines in 1931 to devote himself to politics and public speaking as a private citizen. In 1932 he went to Washington to harangue the Bonus Army, was an unsuccessful candidate for Senator from Pennsylvania on a Dry ticket. Last December he exhorted veterans: 'If the Democrats take care of you, keep them in —if not, put 'em out.' In May the current Butlerism was: 'War Is A Racket.' Last month he told a Manhattan Jewish congregation that he would never again fight outside the U. S. General Butler's sensational tongue had not been heard in the nation's Press for more than a week when he cornered a reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Post, poured into his ears the lurid tale that he had been offered leadership of a Fascist Putsch, scheduled for next year."


 * In general, the article needs to give a more three-dimensional sense of the man. He sounds interesting, but it doesn't shine through. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


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