Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/WAVES/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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2019.

WAVES

 * Nominator(s): Pendright (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the United States Naval Reserve (Women's Reserve), better known as WAVES. Pendright has been working on this article for several years. It went through GAN in 2016 and MILHIST ACR earlier this year. I have nominated the article for FAC on behalf of Pendright, per request on my talkpage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The idea of women serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II was not widely supported in the U.S. Congress or by the Navy itself. Still, there were those who believed otherwise and pressed the issue. Intense political wrangling followed, but in July 1942 the congress authorized the establishment of the WAVES as the women’s branch of the U.S Naval Reserve. For the first time, Women could now serve in the Navy as an officer or at an enlisted level, with a rank or rate consistent with that of their male counterparts. From 1942 to 1946, over 86,000 women served in the WAVES, where they worked in various professions and occupations. The Article was promoted to A-class on 18, April 2018. To those who choose to review the article, thank you. Pendright (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tony1
Criterion 1a, lead:
 * "The notion of women serving in the Navy was not widely supported in the Congress or by the Navy, although some members did support the need for uniformed women during World War II." You might drop the second "by". "members means members of Congress, I suppose; slight possibility it might refer to members of the Navy. Let's avoid the gendered "Congressmen" ... would "lawmakers" fix the problem?
 * The notion of women serving in the Navy was not widely supported by the Congress or the Navy, although some of the lawmakers and naval personnel did support the need for uniformed women during World War II. Pendright (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "For enlisted, the eligible age was ..."—unsure what that means. "For the enlisted"? (i.e. the already-enlisted). Or "For enlistment"?
 * = "other ranks" in British English, and perhaps Australian. Not officers or NCOs. But perhaps there are readers equally unfamiliar. See Enlisted rank (or Other ranks for a range of links). Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Enlisted was changed to enlistment as correctly pointed out by the reviewer. In U.S. English, enlistment is described as the action of enrolling or being enrolled in the armed services. No entry rate or rank, just a recruit. Pendright (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "indoctrination"—most narrowly, yes, it is the right word. But several sources I consulted give it a "brainwashing" tinge. Cambridge English Dictionary: "1. to often repeat an idea or belief to someone to persuade them to accept it." Two examples are provided: "Some parents were critical of attempts to indoctrinate children in green ideology. They have been indoctrinated by television to believe that violence is normal." The second meaningn concerns "religious/political/ideological indoctrination". Perhaps a more neutral word? "training"? "induction"? There are other synonyms, too.
 * Substituted training for indoctrination - Pendright (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "Specialized training for officers was held on several college campuses and at various naval facilities. Most enlisted members received recruit training at Hunter College, in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. After recruit training, some women attended specialized training courses on college campuses and at naval facilities." ... training was "held"; perhaps "was conducted", but it's ok. And possibly, too: "Most enlisted members received initial training at Hunter College in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. Some women then attended ...".
 * Specialized training for officers was conducted on several college campuses and at various naval facilities. Most enlisted members received recruit training at Hunter College, in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. After recruit training, some women then attended specialized training courses on college campuses and at naval facilities. Pendright (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * False match between fields and practitioners: "Many officers entered fields previously held by men, such as doctors and engineers"—medicine and engineering? And you mark gender in the next sentence, but not here (Many female officers).
 * Many female officers entered fields previously held by men, such as medicine and engineering. Pendright (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "At the same time, many of the women were experiencing hostility in the workplace by some of their male counterparts."—I think the first phrase could go. Simpler is better: "Many women experienced workplace hostility from their male counterparts."
 * Many women experienced workplace hostility from their male counterparts. Pendright (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * cause for ... I think better might be "source of"?
 * The Navy's lack of clear-cut policies, early on, was the source of many of the difficulties. Pendright (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "Upon their demobilization"—who was being demobilized? The women or the bosses?
 * Upon demobilization of the officer and enlisted members, Pendright (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Now, this is a great topic, and I'd really like to see it promoted. Going by the lead, I think it needed a more-thorough copyedit before nomination—though the lead is hard to get right. I haven't looked at the rest. Do you have collaborators who could go over it with fresh eyes? (That is, editors who haven't yet worked on it?) Tony (talk)  01:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest. Unfortunately, I seem to have exhausted my circle of fresh eyes – but let me see what I can do elsewhere. Pendright (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read through parts of the article and generally agree with your comments, that it could use a thorough copyedit and that the prose is not currently up to FA standard. I'm willing to have a look and see what feedback I can offer. Catrìona (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have made a lot of prose comments in the collapsed section below my support and am confident that the article now meets 1a. Courtesy ping in case you want to take another look. Catrìona (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Catrìona
Glad to support this promotion; collapsing extended discussion that has been resolved. Catrìona (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you - Pendright (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * General
 * Per Manual of Style/Layout, you should be careful not to allow images to break up headers, which unfortunately happens here.
 * I’ve reviewed the MOS reference. Also looked at other articles, FAC and AC, and image-wise I don’t see any differences between them and those in this article. I’m ready to try to fix the problem, but I need a better grasp of the problem. Would you mind elaborating further? Pendright (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being more specific. In the "Uniforms" section the image exceeds the header, which is probably necessary, but it is awkward to then butt up against an unrelated image "A Campus view of Smith College", which I would recommend deleting because it is only tangentially relevant. The layout of the "Personnel" section is also awkward. Both the images are relevant, but they should be kept within the section. Personally, I might try using the template, either side by side or one above the other. If you aren't familiar with templates, I could try reformatting that part myself. Catrìona (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (a) Deleted image of Campus view of Smith College - Pendright (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (b) I'd apprecite any
 * reformating help you are willing to provide. Pendright (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, see if you like it. I took the liberty of shortening the captions and ALT text a bit. The ALT text should not be duplicative of the caption, per WP:Alt text. Catrìona (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've not come across this way of adding images to the article before. It appears to have broken the links to the commons images. Factotem (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the links manually. Catrìona (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:Alt text; it is intended to describe the purely visual content of an image for the benefit of the visually impaired. For an example of alt text done correctly, see Bratislava Working Group.
 * I’ve rewritten the alt text more in the prescribed manner. If you find fault with any of it, let me know. Thanks for the alt text rewrites on the stacked images, which look good. Is the image under Uniforms awkward enough to justify deletion? Pendright (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see MOS:CREDENTIAL (TLDR: in most cases, don't use titles like Dr., Mrs., etc.)
 * Deleted Dr. from Dr. Ada Comstock image. Pendright (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleted Dr. from Dr. Chung in text - Pendright (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are these indented? They don't appear to be quotes.
 * In More Than a Uniform, Winifred Quick Collins (a former WAVE officer) described Director McAfee as a born diplomat, handling difficult matters with finesse.[18] She also said McAfee played important decision-making roles in the WAVES' treatment compared to the men and in their assignments, housing conditions, and supervision and discipline standards.
 * Block quote removed - Pendright (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * In Lady in the Navy, Joy Bright Hancock described Underwood as intelligent, enthusiastic, and good humored, and serious of purpose.
 * Block quote removed - Pendright (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, was tasked with selecting a name. She explained:
 * The quote attached to Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, was tasked with selecting a name. is sourced so it's difficult to tell what information is from which source. Also, it's best to cite direct quotes to a secondary source where possible. Just taking a guess at what information is supported by which source, you could do something like:

"I realized there were two letters that had to be in it: W for women and V for volunteer, because the Navy wants to make it clear that this is a voluntary service and not a drafted service. So, I played with those two letters and the idea of the sea and finally came up with Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service – WAVES. I figured the word Emergency would comfort the older admirals because it implies that we're only a temporary crisis and won't be around for keeps."


 * This is how the text read in 2016, before someone other than my self changed it:
 * They also recognized the importance of a name: agreeing it should be one suitable for the organization envisioned. To Reynard fell the task of finding such a name.[12] In explaining how she came up with the nautical name, Reynard said: "I realized that there were two letters which had to be in it: W for women and V for volunteer, because the Navy wants to make it clear that this is a voluntary service and not a drafted service. So I played with those two letters and the idea of the sea and finally came up with Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service – WAVES. I figured the word Emergency would comfort the older admirals because it implies that we're only a temporary crisis and won't be around for keeps."[13]Raynard was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES.[14]

Any suggestions? Pendright (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, from a Gbooks search, I can confirm that the quote appears in Hancock, and also on page 38 of one of the editions of Crossed Currents. If you can confirm that that's the same edition you used (see Factotem's comments below), I'll fix it myself. Catrìona (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I Confirm it's page 38 - read the comment, and thanks. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix, but it should read, Goodson P. 111, not 11. It confirms the tasking and 113 the commissioning Pendright (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI - Pendright (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Background
 * denied the benefits of their male counterparts This is a vague statement. Although not directly related to the article, consider adding a footnote stating how the benefits for women differed than those for men; it also isn't clear in the article if/how WAVES' benefits were different.
 * (a) Footnotes:
 * In May 1942, the U.S. Congress authorized the Women’s Army Auxillary Corps (WAAC), but chose not to install it as a branch of the U.S. Army. Instead, created it as an auxiliary unit, where the members were with the Army, but not in it. Consequently, the WAAC members did not have full military status and were denied such benefits as pensions, disability protection, and other rights granted to the male members of the Army.[1] However, in July 1943, the Congress refashioned the WAAC into the Women's Army Corps (WAC), providing its members with the same benefits and rights as the male members of the U.S. Army.[2] Pendright (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (b) The WAAC was created without full military status, but the WAVES were granted full military status as a branch of the U.S. Naval Reserve, with the same benefits and rights as male reservists. Pendright (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * In her book, Lady in the Navy, Joy Bright Hancock quotes his reply: Suggest "He replied," (Alternately, state Hancock's source for the statement; she didn't seem to be a witness to the conversation)
 * Here is the text: Joy Bright Hancock described Underwood as intelligent, enthusiastic, and good humored, and serious of purpose (not in quotes).
 * Why is this not just an account of relevant characteristics or qualities of someone being described? Pendright (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Bureau of Personnel Is this the Bureau of Naval Personnel linked above? Best to be consistent.
 * Bureau of Naval Personnel - Pendright (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * In Crossed Currents, the authors describe Chung and her involvement: Suggest breaking up this quote and paraphrasing in your own words, per Wikipedia policy to minimize quotes and brevity.
 * Still, the Bureau of Aeronautics continued to believe there was a place for women in the Navy, and appealed to an influential friend of naval aviation, Margaret Chung.[6] A San Francisco physician and surgeon, Chung was known to have had an interest in naval aviation. Many of her naval friends referred to themselves as sons of Mom Chung. In Crossed Currents, the authors describe how Chung used her influence:
 * Having learned of the stalemate, she asked one of these [sons], Representative Melvin Maas of Minnesota, who had served in the aviation branch of the U.S. Marine Corps in World War I, to introduce legislation independently of the Navy. On 18 March 1942 he did just that.[7] Pendright (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Is the political party of the politicians relevant to mention?
 * Debatable, of course, but it's a historic fact, part of the story, and relevant as well. Pendright (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Maas's House bill was essentially the same as the Knox proposal, which would make a women's branch part of the Naval Reserve Suggest "Like the Knox propose, Maas' bill would create a women's branch of the Naval Reserve", unless there were other similarities that would be appropriate to mention in the article.
 * Changed artice text: The Maas House bill was identical to the the Knox proposal, <> Went to the source and it says "identical" -Pendright (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * On 16 April 1942, the House Naval Affairs Committee reported favorably on the bill. which bill?
 * Maas bill - Pendright (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * But Knox asked the president to reconsider. You should be more clear on whether or not the bill passed and/or if Roosevelt signed it.
 * The Senate committee eventually proposed a naval version of the WAAC, and the president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, approved it. But Knox asked the president to reconsider.
 * Roosevelt only approved a Senate committee proposal. Pendright (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Creation of the program
 * You state Because of her efforts, eight prominent women agreed to serve on the council. However, from the list that follows it looks like only seven of them served at once, and according to Google, Graham was a man. Phrases like "national authority" and "noted lecturer" are potentially WP:PEACOCK issues.
 * Because of her efforts, several prominent women agreed to serve on the council. They included:
 * Meta Glass, president of Sweet Briar College
 * Lillian Gilbreth, a specialist on efficiency in the workplace
 * Ada Comstock, president of Radcliffe College
 * Alice Crocker Lloyd, dean of the University of Michigan
 * Mrs. Malbone Graham, a lecturer from the West Coast
 * Marie Rogers Gates, the wife of Thomas Sovereign Gates, president of the University of Pennsylvania
 * Harriet Elliott, dean of women at the University of North Carolina
 * Alice Baldwin, dean of women at Duke University, served after Elliott's resignation.[9]
 * Source confirms it is Mrs. Graham as does Google - Pendright (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, that looks good, except that we do not usually refer to women by their husband's name. If her husband was Malbone Watson Graham, professor of political science at UCLA, (which is what I got to when I googled Malbone Graham), what was her name? Catrìona (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Gladys, per Google - Pendright (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Her first-rate performance as Jacobs' assistant silenced any fears the Navy may have had about women educators. WP:PEACOCK
 * Deleted - Pendright (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The task of convincing McAfee to accept and persuading the Wellesley Board of Trustees to release her was difficult, but successful. McAfee was reluctant to accept the position and the Wellesley Board of Trustees initially refused to release her, but eventually she was freed ...?
 * but eventually she was freed - Pendright (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Mildred McAfee was an experienced and respected academician, whose background would provide a measure of creditability to the idea of women serving in the Navy. move this earlier in the paragraph, to explain why McAfee was chosen for the position
 * The council knew the success of the program would depend on the woman chosen to lead it. A prospective candidate would need to possess proven managerial skills, command respect, and have an ability to get along well with others. Their recommendation was Mildred H. McAfee, president of Wellesley College, as the future director.[9] The Navy agreed. McAfee was an experienced and respected academician, whose background would provide a measure of creditability to the idea of women serving in the Navy.[10] Pendright (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * who did not favor the WAAC concept, cut, already stated
 * Cut - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Council members Advisory Council members
 * Added - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * each took it on themselves to write suggest "separately wrote to"
 * As a matter of procedure or rule, a council usually acts as a body, not individually. That’s why I used this language.


 * Women's branch of the Navy reserve odd capitalization, since this isn't the official name, suggest "women's branch..."
 * Lower case - Pendright (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "... Lieutenant Commander McAfee was simply told by the bureau that she was to 'run' the women's reserve and she was to go directly to the Chief of Naval Personnel for answers to her questions. Unfortunately, the decision was not made known to the operating divisions of the bureau." attribute this quote, and I would start it "McAfee was told..." (the hanging ellipses are distracting and unnecessary, imo)
 * The bureau "told McAfee that she was to run the women's reserve, and she was to go directly to the Chief of Naval Personnel for answers to her questions."[19] -Pendright (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No plans existed to help guide her; in fact, no planning had been done, by anyone, in anticipation of the Women's Reserve Act. Suggest "No planning had been done in anticipation of the Women's Reserve Act."
 * Deleted "by anyone" - Pendright (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * By August and September 1942, another 108 women confusing dates, do you mean "In August and September" or "By September"?
 * Deleted August - Pendright (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Recrutiting
 * The age for officer candidates was between 20 and 49, with a college degree, or two years of college and two years of equivalent professional or business experience. The enlistment age requirements were between 20 and 35, with a high school or business diploma, or equivalent experience. The change has made this passage excessively confusing. I strongly suggest going back to the previous version, since this isn't any more help to BrE speakers.
 * Suggested replacement:
 * To be eligible for officer candidate school, the age requirement was 20 to 49, posses a college degree, or have two years of college and two years of equivalent professional or business experience. To volunteer at the enlisted level, the age requirement was 20 to 35, posses a high school or a business diploma, or with equivalent experience.
 * Pendright (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * led the way Excessively colloquial and vague. State exactly what is meant by "led the way".
 * The WAVES were primarily white (and middle class) and they represented every state in the country. Although, the greatest number of WAVES came from New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Pendright (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Knox said that black WAVES would be enlisted over his dead body. consider a direct quote here
 * Added quotation marks - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Pendright: I checked the source, and it seems like the sources quote the words "over his dead body" and this is attributed to McAfee's recollection of the conversation. You should be more clear about who is being quoted here since Knox would not have said "over his dead body". Catrìona (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Point well taken, however, this is the work of another editor, and includes all edits to the article sourced to MacGregor. I’ll gladly accept criticism for my work, but this is too embarrassing for me to keep my silence. That said, I plan to inform this editor of your findings and give said editor the opportunity to fix what you found.
 * Pendright (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you would think that; it seems entirely in character for Knox. The source is McAfee's recollection. I have adjusted the quotation so it matches the source. Although just a figure of speech, that is indeed what happened.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * After his death on 28 April 1944, his successor Forrestal immediately moved to reform the Navy's racial policies. He submitted a proposal to accept WAVES on an integrated basis to the president on 28 July 1944. Consider combining these sentences. And if it took him until July to submit a proposal, why "immediately"?


 * After his death on 28 April 1944, his successor Forrestal moved to reform the Navy's racial policies, and submitted a proposal to accept WAVES on an integrated basis to the president on 28 July 1944. Pendright (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * His opponent Thomas E. Dewey made an election issue of it when he criticized the administration for discriminating against black women in a speech in Chicago. Suggest: The Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey, criticized...
 * The Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey, criticized the administration for discriminating against black women in a speech in Chicago. Pendright (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Immediately, Roosevelt issued the order to accept African-American women on 19 October 1944. Better to use dates rather than vague descriptors such as "immediately"
 * On 19 October 1943, Roosevelt issued the order to accept African-American women. Pendright (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The first two African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills . Both, who graduated from Smith College and were commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December.
 * The first African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills, who graduated from Smith College and were commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December 1944. Pendright (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Enlistment of African-American women commenced the following week. unclear: do you mean African-American women in the enlisted ranks?
 * The source used by the editor who contributed this information states, “and the enlistment of black women began a week later. Don’t know what the editor had in mind, but it seems reasonable to assume, in the circumstances, that the intent of the president’s order was to include both. Recruitment seems a better choice of words, because it is “the action of enlisting new people in the armed forces” (online dictionary). Pendright (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The promise of segregated quarters could not be maintained; each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company. This comes off as NPOV. Try something like, "Because each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company, segregated quarters were not practical"
 * Changed per the above - Pendright (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It looked like this would become yet another excuse to exclude black women, but McAfee appealed to Forrestal and he dropped the segregation requirement.
 * Regarding some of the above questions: After reading the original text over a few times, I have had some second thoughts about it. While I had no hand in the writing of it, I did have a responsibility to try and clean it up. Anyway, here’s the text after my tweaks - perhaps you could work some of your magic on it.
 * Tweaked text:
 * On 19 October 1944 (Correct date), Roosevelt issued the order to accept African-American women for service in the WAVES; the order went into effect the following week. The first African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills, who graduated from Smith College and were commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December 1944. The idea of segregated quarters was an impractical arrangement, because each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company. McAfee appealed to Forrestal and he dropped the segregation requirement. By July 1945, some 72 African American WAVES were trained at Hunter College Naval Training School. While training was integrated, black WAVES experienced some restrictions in terms of speciality assignments and also accommodations, which was segregated on some bases.
 * Current text:
 * On 19 October 1943, Roosevelt issued the order to accept African-American women.[27] The first African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills, who graduated from Smith College and were commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December 1944. Enlistment of African-American women commenced the following week. Because each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company, segregated quarters were not practical. "It looked like this would become yet another excuse to exclude black women, but McAfee appealed to Forrestal and he dropped the segregation requirement. Some 72 African American WAVES were trained at Hunter College Naval Training School by July 1945. While training was integrated, black WAVES experienced some restrictions in terms of specialty assignments and also accommodation, which was segregated on some bases.[27]
 * Pendright (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Much improved! But what are you quoting starting with "It looks like..." and where does the quote end? Catrìona (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Tweaked text contains no such wording! Pendright (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my tweaked version was developed from the text as written in the article, but after a close reading of the relevant MacGregor text (pages 87-88, 248, and Footnote 102), I’ve revamped my previously tweaked version to the following: The Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey, criticized the administration for discriminating against African-American women during a speech in Chicago. (Page 87.) On 19 October 1944, the President instructed the Navy to accept African-American women into the WAVES (Footnote 102, Page 87).

The first African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills, who graduated from Smith College and commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December 1944. The recruitment of African-American women began the following week. (Page 87) The plan for segregated quarters was impractical, because each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company. McAfee appealed to Forrestal and he dropped the segregation requirement. By July 1945, some 72 African-American WAVES were trained at Hunter College Naval Training School. While training was integrated, African-American WAVES experienced some restrictions such as specialty assignments and living accommodations, which were segregated on some bases. (Page 88) Those that remained in the WAVES after the war were employed without discrimination, but there were only five left by August 1946. (Page 248) Pendright (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but I have one concern: by graduated from Smith College, it sounds like they graduated from Smith College via the traditional four year degree program. Also, you haven't introduced Smith College as the site of the Navy's training course yet. So I would suggest dropping this phrase. Catrìona (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Phrase dropped - Pendright (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Uniforms
 * The WAVES looked professional and attractive in stylish uniforms created especially for them. I think it would be more NPOV to rewrite this to something more like: "The WAVES' uniforms were designed by New York fashion house Mainbocher to look professional and attractive." You should combine this with the following paragraph.
 * Revised per suggestion and combined with following paragraph. Pendright (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Training
 * The entire section could stand some copyediting for cohesion. For example, the statement that the officers' training was two months is in two places.
 * Implementation of your suggestions (cited below) and some fine-tuning has, I believe, improved the cohesion of the section. Pendright (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggest combining first two paragraphs under "Officers"
 * Combined - Pendright (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * USN (Retired), drop this, already implied by "recalled to active duty"
 * Dropped - Pendright (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School at Smith College if this is the official name of the training program, it should go in the first sentence of the section.
 * The Navy chose Smith College at Northampton, Massachusetts, as the training site for WAVE officers. The facility offered much of what the Navy needed, and a college setting provided the proper training environment.[35] The nickname for Smith was the USS Northampton,[36] although the official name of the training station was the United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School. Captain H. W. Underwood was recalled to active duty on 13 August 1942; then ordered to serve as the commanding officer of the School. Pendright (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * lieutenants Should be clear in the text that this is junior grade, not a full naval lieutenant.
 * Revised paragraph with Footnote:
 * Following their training, the midshipmen were commissioned as ensigns in the women’s branch of the U.S. Naval Reserve and in the Women’s branch of the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve (SPARS), or as second lieutenants in the United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve. The midshipmen included 203 SPARS and 295 women of the Marine Corps Women's Reserve. [Note 2]
 * Footnote 2:
 * Initially, the U.S. Navy provided the training of officer candidates for the WAVES, SPARS, and Marine Corps Women’s Reserve, but then in June and July of 1943, the Coast Guard and the Maine Corps decoded to operate their own training schools.[40] [41] Pendright (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Falls, Iowa, became the new basic training center for enlisted WAVES. This paragraph may go into unnecessary detail about the exact schedule followed by the training programs. You might consider putting some of it in a note. Splitting off content into a new article Training of the WAVES is another option.
 * Revised with Footnote:
 * The recruit training routine began each weekday morning with classes and drill, and classes and drill in the afternoon. In the evening, free time and then study or instruction until taps. Saturday morning was the Captain's Inspection, with free time the rest of the day. On Sunday, church services were followed by free time until evening, then study hours until taps.[44] [Note 3]
 * Footnote 3:
 * This is a detailed look of how a recruit’s day was filled. Each weekday, Reveille was at 5:30 or 6:00 a.m.; breakfast at 6:30 a.m.; classes and drill for four hours before lunch, and classes and drill for another four hours in the afternoon. This was followed by an hour of free time, dinner, and two hours of study or instruction, lights out at 10:00 p.m. The Captain's Inspection was on Saturday morning, then free time until taps. On Sunday, Reveille was at 7:00 a.m., with breakfast at 7:30 a.m. Trainees then attended church services, followed by free time until 7:30 p.m., when study hours until taps.[45] Pendright (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hunter College became the main recruit training center for enlisted WAVES; chosen because of its space; location; ease of transportation, and the willingness of the college to make its facilities available. Suggest: Hunter College was chosen as the main recruit training center for enlisted WAVES because of its space, location, ease of transportation, and the willingness of the college to make its facilities available.
 * Revised in keeping with your suggestion - Pendright (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Each recruit went through a balanced training program. She was instructed in Navy ranks and rates; ships and aircraft of the fleet; naval traditions and customs; and of course, naval history. Physical training and fitness were stressed. As the women marched in platoons to classes, medical examinations, and drills, their approach was signaled by singing, their voices providing the cadence for marching feet." Suggest paraphrasing this quote and integrating into the text. Pendright (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The boot camp training objectives for the women were intended to be similar to those of the men. The range of instruction included: Navy ranks and rate; ships and aircraft of the fleet; naval traditions and customs; naval history; and emphasis on physical fitness. As the recruits marched in platoons to classes and for drills, their own voices provided the cadence for marching feet. [48] Pendright (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is copied directly from the quotation. I would recommend dropping entirely or rewriting, such as "The women marched in formation between drills and classes". Catrìona (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Dropped - Pendright (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Assignments/Personnel/Demob
 * Initially, they were prohibited from serving in commands afloat and outside of the country. I assume you mean: "Initially, they were prohibited from serving on ships or outside of the country."
 * Yes, changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The officers served in many professional capacities, including doctors; attorneys; engineers and mathematicians; and chaplains. Suggest "The officers served as doctors, attorneys, engineers, mathematicians, and chaplains."
 * Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The enlisted WAVES undertook jobs such as aviation machinist; aviation metalsmith; parachute rigger; control tower operator; radio operator; yeoman; and statistician; as well as working in areas such as administration; personnel, and health care. Although some of the enlisted women had the opportunity to work in fields previously held by the men, most worked in a secretarial or clerical position. Suggest: "Most enlisted WAVES worked in secretarial or clerical positions in administration, personnel, and health care. A few took over jobs typically held by men, such as aviation machinist, aviation metalsmith, parachute rigger, control tower operator, radio operator, yeoman, or statistician."
 * Most enlisted WAVES worked in traditional jobs, such as clerical, health care, or storekeeping. A few took over jobs typically held by men, such as aviation machinist, aviation metalsmith, parachute rigger, control tower operator, radio operator, yeoman, or statistician. Pendright (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The WAVES enjoyed many successes in the workplace, but they also suffered from a degree of intolerance. Some of the problems sprang from contradictory attitudes of the men who supervised the women. Often, the women were underutilized in relation to their training, while others were assigned roles to which they were not physically suited. In some cases the women were utilized only out of dire need. The mission of the WAVES was to replace the men in shore stations for sea duty, which led to some hostility from those who did not wish to be released. The Navy's lack of clear-cut policies early on also contributed to the difficulties. The bolded words imply a value judgement which is best avoided. Suggest: "The mission of the WAVES was to replace the men in shore stations for sea duty, which led to some hostility from those who did not wish to be released. Due to the contradictory attitudes of their male superiors, some WAVES were underutilized in relation to their training, while others were assigned roles to which they were not physically suited. In some cases the women were utilized only out of dire need. The Navy's lack of clear-cut policies early on also contributed to the difficulties."
 * Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wanting to serve her country in the time of need was a strong incentive for a young woman during World War II; thousands of them saw fit to join the WAVES. With some, it was the lure of adventure, for others it was the professional development, and still others joined for the chance to experience life on college campuses. Some followed family traditions and others yearned for a life other than as a civilian. This could be more concise and neutral. Perhaps: "Many young women joined the WAVES out of patriotism or family tradition. Others were motivated by adventure, professional development, or the experience of life in the military or on college campuses."
 * Changed per suggestion - ````


 * During the course of the war, seven WAVE officers and 62 enlisted women died of unspecified causes. This sounds like other women might have died of specified causes. I would cut the phrase "of unspecified causes".
 * Dropped _ Pendright (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The WAVES left behind a legacy of accomplishment, which helped to secure a place for the women in the regular Navy. Attribute this opinion, for example: "Ebbert and Hall argue that the WAVES' accomplishments helped to secure a place for the women in the regular Navy."
 * Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like you've addressed all of my suggestions except for one thing above that I added later:
 * In the lede you have: Mildred H. McAfee became the first director of the WAVES. She was commissioned a lieutenant commander on 3 August 1942, and later promoted to commander and then to captain. On leave as President of Wellesley College, McAfee was an experienced educator and highly respected in her field. I think this could be shortened, because the fact that she was president of Wellesley already implies that she was an experienced, respected educator (which may be a WP:PEACOCK issue to say in Wikipedia voice). How about: Mildred H. McAfee, on leave as president of Wellesley College, became the first director of the WAVES. She was commissioned a lieutenant commander on 3 August 1942, and later promoted to commander and then to captain.
 * If you fix this I will switch to support. Thanks for your thorough work on this article! Catrìona (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mildred H. McAfee, on leave as president of Wellesley College, became the first director of the WAVES. She was commissioned a lieutenant commander on 3 August 1942, and later promoted to commander and then to captain. Pendright (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Source Review by Factotem
General
 * No unsourced paragraphs found;
 * The statement that Dr. Ada Comstock was "...President of Radcliffe College (1925–1943)..." in the image caption is not sourced either in the article or in the image description over at Commons (and the WP article on her gives her years as president as 1923–1943);
 * Changed, 1923 is correct - Pendright (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That she was president still needs a source. Factotem (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)–
 * It’s sourced in the text under Creation of the program, along with the other council members – citation 9, Ebbert & Hall page 3 2.
 * According to the GBooks snippet, the source states that she was president, but does not give the years of her tenure. Factotem (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This New York Times source confirms her tenure as president. However, each time I try to cite it, the results raise red flags. Could I prevail upon you to cite it?
 * Pendright (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what problems you were experiencing. You successfully added the source to the bibliography, and I was able to add an inline ref citing that source to the caption. No matter, all good now. Factotem (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * THANKS! Pendright (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Technical checks
 * The information provided in the captions of the two images in the Personnel section is unsourced. Strike that. The way they are formatted prevented me from accessing the commons descriptions. I was able to do so from a revision in the article history before that formatting was applied, and verify that the captions are sourced to those descriptions. Factotem (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * References formatted correctly;
 * Not sure it's necessary to link locations in the bibliography, but just pointing out that New York in the last publication is not linked.
 * Linked - Pendright (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

External links
 * Ext link checker does not report any serious issues;
 * The ISBN number provided for Ebert and Hall's Crossed Currents relates to the 1999 edition of Crossed Currents: Navy Women in a Century of Change, published by Potomac Books. This is a 400-page book. The rest of the bibliographical information, however, specifies the 1993 edition published by Brassey's. Worldcat lists two different editions of works by Ebert and Hall published by Brassey's Washington facility in 1993, both with the different title of Crossed currents : Navy women from WWI to Tailhook. This one has the ISBN 9780028810225 and runs to 321 pages, while this one has the ISBN 9780028811123 and runs to 341 pages. As well as apparently being two different publications, the three different paginations might affect the page numbering in references sourced to the work;
 * Bibliography:
 * Corrected Ebert to Ebbert
 * Added subtitle: Navy Women from WWI to Tailhook
 * Corrected ISBN # to: 0-02-881022-8
 * Confirm: 1993 edition
 * Pendright (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe we're expected to use consistent ISBN formats at FAC, which in this case is ISBN-13 (i.e. 9780028810225, though I don't know how that should be hyphenated). Factotem (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Confused! The ISBN listed in the Biography is the ISBN that is contained in my 1993 edition. Pendright (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Using https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter converts that ISBN-10 number to 978-0-02-881022-5 in ISBN-13 format. I'm not even sure consistent ISBN formatting is a rule for FAC, but it gets picked up on every time, so I just go with the flow. Factotem (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed per above, thank you! Pendright (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Also: is her name Ebert or Ebbert? Catrìona (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct name is Ebbert, in the process of changing - Pendright (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ebbert completed - Pendright (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Goodson's Serving Proudly has the tagline "a history of women in the U.S. Navy" which I think could usefully be added to the title so that it reads Serving Proudly: a history of women in the U.S. Navy, especially given the ambiguity in titling identified above for Crossed Currents;
 * Added subtitle - Pendright (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Similar. Full title of Hancock's book is Lady in the Navy : a Personal Reminiscence;
 * Added subtitle - Pendright (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Similar. Full title of Yellin's book is Our mothers' war : American women at home and at the front during World War II.
 * Added subtitle - Pendright (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Quality and reliability of sources Comprehensiveness
 * Nothing to indicate any problems here. I have made the assumption that university and military presses are reliable, and found nothing of concern in an admittedly quick search for information about Brassey's and Free Press.
 * A Gbooks search for United States Naval Reserve (Women's Reserve) did not reveal any potential sources not already used in the article.

Spotchecks I was able to access the MacGregor and Hancock works, though the last two references to Hancock (pp. 216 & 232) were not available in the GBooks preview.
 * The statement "The legislation that established the WAVES contained nothing about the inclusion or exclusion of people of color, but the Navy Department decided that it should be exclusively white" is sourced to MacGregor pp. 74–75, but I see nothing in that source to suggest that the Navy Department made a conscious decision, only that the WAVES "...celebrated their second birthday exclusively white."
 * "No black women had been admitted to the Navy. Race was not mentioned in the legislation establishing the WAVES in 1942, but neither was exclusion on account of color expressly forbidden. The WAVES and the Women's Reserve of both the Coast Guard (SPARS) and the Marine Corps therefore celebrated their second birthday exclusively white. The Navy Nurse Corps was also totally white. In answer to protests passed to the service through Eleanor Roosevelt, the Navy admitted in November 1943 that it had a shortage of 500 nurses, but since another 500 white nurses were under indoctrination and training, the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery explained, "the question relative to the necessity for accepting colored personnel in this category is not apparent" (pp. 74-75)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see nothing there that explicitly supports the statement "the Navy Department decided that it should be exclusively white". It would be accurate, based on that source, to say there were no coloured recruits, but not accurate to state a reason why there were none. Factotem (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Would this work:
 * The legislation that established the WAVES was silent with respect to racial type, but the Navy Department decided that it should be exclusively white.
 * Pendright (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Fraid not. The source does not state that the reason why the WAVES was exclusively white was due to a conscious decision by the Navy Department. Factotem (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How about this: The legislation that established the WAVES was silent with respect to racial type, but Knox said that black WAVES would be enlisted over his dead body. Pendright (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's consistent with the source. Factotem (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed per above - Pendright (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The statement "Those that remained in the WAVES after the war were employed without discrimination, but there were only five left by September 1946" is sourced to MacGregor p. 247, but that information appears on p. 248. Also, the source dates its information only relative to VJ Day which, I believe, was in August, so where does September come from in that statement?
 * "on V-J Day; a year later that number had been reduced to 5 black WAVES and 1 nurse".(p. 248)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And VJ Day is in August, so specifying September in the article is incorrect. Factotem (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Chaged page number to 248 and September to August - Pendright (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Paraphrasing issue:
 * In the article, "...black WAVES were restricted somewhat in specialty assignments and a certain amount of separate quartering within integrated barracks prevailed at some duty stations."
 * In the source, "Although black WAVES were restricted somewhat in specialty assignments and a certain amount of separate quartering within integrated barracks prevailed at some duty stations..."
 * Paraphrasing issue:
 * In the article, "...the rationale was to teach the fundamental traditions of life and work in the naval service, focusing on administrative procedures."
 * In the source, "...the aim was to teach the basic fundamentals of life and work in the naval service with emphasis on administrative procedures..."
 * The objective was to prepare the candidates with a base understanding of the naval environment, while stressing administrative policy. Pendright (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That's all. Factotem (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So what's the issue?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording in the article is too close to the wording in the source, hence copyright concerns. The second example is, perhaps, borderline, but the first is almost an exact copy. Factotem (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What copyright concerns? It is a public domain text.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My understanding, per the guidelines on avoiding plagiarism detailed here and here, is that even public domain sources should not be copied verbatim or too closely paraphrased without attribution. An inline citation is not by itself sufficient attribution, and the best way to avoid accusations of plagiarism is to summarise the source in one's own words. Factotem (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, not an area I know much about, but in the first instance would something like this work: While training was integrated, black WAVES experienced some restrictions in terms of specialty assignments and also accommodation, which was segregated on some bases? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would work for me. Factotem (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I had a go at adjusting the wording to deal with both instances. These are my changes: . I hope this helps, but if there are any concerns, please feel free to revert and adjust as desired. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Those changes are fine by me. Factotem (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not quite all. Given that I found two issues of too-close paraphrasing, I did a little more digging. The Earwig copy-vio tool reports "violation unlikely", but with a low level of confidence. It also identifies that the first three sentences in the lead are almost a verbatim copy of text published on the Stony Brook University library web site. Factotem (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve never been on any University of Stony Brook site, until I read your comments. Since then, I found that the text to which you refer was published on 3 March 2018, while the WAVES article was already approved as a GA on 16 February 2016. BTW, in case you did not observe, the site has no substantive information on the general history of the WAVES. Pendright (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't occur to me to check through the article history to see which site copied which. Well spotted. Factotem (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Support on sourcing All issues above have been addressed, and I can see no reason to oppose based on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you - Pendright (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review


 * Ada_Louise_Comstock,_1923-1943_(13083782855).jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You had the same query during the article’s ACR, and the response to it is cut and pasted here:
 * File:Ada_Louise_Comstock,_1923-1943_(13083782855).jpg: per the Flickr tag, are more specific copyright tags available? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On 18 March 2018, this image was substituted for the one I had originally posted.
 * The helpful editor who made the improvement shared this information with us:

Hi there. I checked the image file at the Commons. The marginal text on the original version states that it is from the Radcliffe Archives, and the Schlesinger Library posted the file at Flickr in 2014, stating that there are "no known copyright restrictions". The institution itself has made the image available, so the licensing tag used when it was uploaded at the Commons in 2016 is appropriate and sufficient. The image depicts Ada Louise Comstock in her professional capacity at Radcliffe, and is stamped with an archival ID number. Since the institution's library posted the image at Flickr, it's evident that "the institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control ... or has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions". Further discussion could take place at the Commons. Pendright (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pendright (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz
Hi, on the home run now! It seems so long since we discussed this before the AC review. I've just made a few edits, all minor. Please undo any you don't agree with. Below are a few small suggestions to consider...
 * Thank you - Pendright (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * lede says "The WAVES were primarily white, but 74 African-American women did eventually serve" while the Recruiting section says "By July 1945, some 72 African-American WAVES had undergone recruit training" - is the discrepany of 2 intentional?
 * Source says 72, corrected - Pendright (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "... although the official name of the training station was the United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School." - add wlink to United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School?
 * Linked - Pendright (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "After his death on 28 April 1944, his successor Forrestal moved to reform the Navy's racial policies..." - including the exact date makes it read as if Forrestal acted that very day. How about just "After his death in April 1944..."?
 * After his death in April 1944, his successor Forrestal moved to reform the Navy's racial policies, - Question: Do you think Forrestal is supplemental and should be set off by commas? Pendright (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It reads fine to me but I'm not too confident with punctuation! JennyOz (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * taps - there are 4 mentions. It appears from its article and per this image, that as the name of a piece of music, it should take a capital T each mention. (Similarly to Reveille.)
 * All four now uppercase - Pendright (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Their design services were secured (without cost) through the efforts of Mrs. James V. Forrestal, wife of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy." - many readers will take umbrage at a woman being called only by her husband's name (even if it was more common back then). Can I please respectfully ask that this sentence be changed to something like: "Their design services were secured (without cost) through the efforts of Josephine Forrestal, a former fashion editor at Vogue and the wife of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy." ? (It wasn't just because she was his wife, she had experience and contacts. If you agree, you'll need to add this NYT article as an extra ref.
 * Great idea, changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Although, the greatest number of WAVES came from New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio." - I'd remove "Although" ie start sentence with 'The' and I think "number" should be 'numbers'. Maybe also link Pennsylvania?
 * Chaned per suggestions - Pendright (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The end sentences for both of the Training subsections, ie for Officers and for Enlisted personnel are nearly identical:
 * "Unlike the training on the college campuses, the training offered at these facilities was coeducational."
 * "Unlike the training on the college campuses, the training at these facilities was coeducational."
 * Maybe the second one can be tweaked to 'these facilities were also coeducational.'?
 * Chaged per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Bibliography
 * Fowle, Farnsworth ... Retrieved 2018-11-20. - date format is different to MacGregor, Morris J., Jr. ... Retrieved 30 March 2018.
 * Changed to agree - Pendright (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That is all I have for now. I look forward to supporting your nomination. Just let me know if you need any clarification of the changes I just made or of any of my suggestions above. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hancock, Joy Bright - add authorlink
 * Bibliography: I could use some clarification on the following: Hancock, Joy Bright - add authorlink? Aside from this, I think I have responded to all of your comments – if not I stand ready to do so. Pendright (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the authorlink but happy for you to remove or ask another reviewer if it's okay. JennyOz (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * By way of explanation: I suspected that was the intended meaning, but since I remembered linking her in the Background section, I was a bit confused. While the reference to her survived the ACR, it did not survive the FAR. So thanks again for your keen eye. I wonder, though, if linking her in the body of the article might be more consistent. Pendright (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, definitely retain her link in the body. If it's overlink that you are concerned about, MOS:REPEATLINK says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead" so, from my understanding, authorlinks are fine to add, even if that person is already linked elsewhere. My understanding is that the "helpful" is that it reinforces author credibility, especially if the reader hasn't noticed that the author is already included within the article, but we could ask a coordinator if you're still concerned? JennyOz (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks again. Pendright (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi I am very happily adding my support. I salute your dedicated work with this article! Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your support and kind words. Pendright (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Ian
Recusing from coord duties, I missed this at MilHist ACR so taking the opportunity to review here. Pls let me know any issues with my copyedit -- outstanding points:
 * Thank you for your edits and the opportunity to respond to them. As for the edits, some did attract my attention:
 * Recruiting:
 * The had to possess a high school or a business diploma, or have equivalent experience.
 * The is probably intended to be they? And the lead will need changing to correspond with the body of the article.
 * Sorry, yes, my typo (now fixed). Could you explain how the lead needs changing to correspond with the body now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake! Pendright (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Background:
 * As auxiliaries, women would serve with the Army rather than in it
 * Why auxiliaries? Why not as an auxiliary?
 * I felt it better to match plural with plural ("auxiliaries" with "women") but I guess either is fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A reasonable conclusion on your part – I went singular because it was a specific auxiliary. Anyway, thanks! Pendright (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mildred H. McAfee image:
 * she was ranked lieutenant commander.
 * Would adding the indefinite article a smooth it out a bit?
 * Pendright (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC
 * Perhaps this is an EngVar thing but leaving out the indefinite article is more common in my experience.
 * Another possible EngVar thing is your edits that change "aged" to "age" -- "aged" (verb) reads much better to me that "age" (noun). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I bow to your superior experience. Pendright (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Reynard quickly formed the Women's Advisory Council to meet with Navy officials. Gildersleeve became the chairperson. Because of her efforts, several prominent women agreed to serve on the council. -- I'm unsure whose efforts we're referring to in the last sentence.
 * Gildersleeve became the chairperson, and because of her efforts several prominent women agreed to serve on the council. Pendright (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * the Senate Naval Affairs Committee recommended to the president that the legislation to create a women's reserve corresponding with the WAAC legislation -- doesn't make sense to me grammatically; do we mean the Senate Naval Affairs Committee recommended to the president that the legislation to create a women's reserve correspond ing with the WAAC legislation, or the Senate Naval Affairs Committee recommended to the president that the legislation to create a women's reserve corresponding with the WAAC legislation, or something else again?
 * On 25 May 1942, the Senate Naval Affairs Committee recommended to the president that the legislation to create a women's reserve for the U.S. Navy should parallel that of the original WAAC legislation – where women would serve with the Army rather than in it. Pendright (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * McAfee played important decision-making roles in the WAVES' treatment compared to the men -- I think I get what's meant by compared to the men but if you could clarify then we might be able to express it even better.
 * She also said McAfee played an important role in policy making in matters such as how the women would be treated compared to the men, with respect to assignments they would take, as well as their housing conditions, supervision, and discipline standards. Pendright (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The focus of their advertising campaign was patriotism and the need for women -- feels incomplete, the need for women to free up men for overseas service for instance?
 * Response to this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The focus of their advertising campaign was patriotism and the need for women to free up men for overseas duty. Pendright (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * McAfee demanded good taste in all the advertising -- the mind boggles, did someone advocate bad taste?
 * McAfee demanded good taste in all advertising, determined to cast the WAVES in a ladylike fashion. She said, "Advertising must appeal to conservative parents, schools, and churches as well as to the young women themselves." Pendright (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Stopping there for the moment, will return later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Captain H. W. Underwood -- we seem to have first names for other COs rather than just initials.
 * Herbert W. Underwood - Pendright (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES -- you describe her as a commander later (under Personnel) so it might be worth adding her final rank here as well (e.g. later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, rising to commander)
 * Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, rising to a commander, was tasked with selecting a name. Pendright (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Other officers attended the Naval Technical Training Command School, while others trained to become aviation instructors. -- we have a mix here of where some went and what some did; can we expand slightly to say what they did at Naval Technical Training Command School and where they trained as aviation instructors (and did this actually mean training to teach people to fly, in which case I'd say "flight instructors", or training to teach other aspects of military aviation such as wireless, navigation, aerial gunnery, aircraft maintenance, etc)?
 * Other officers attended the Naval Air Technical Training Command Schools in Corpus Christi, Texas, and Hollywood, Florida, to train as air navigation instructions. Unlike the training on the college campuses, the training offered at these facilities was coeducational. Pendright (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The recruit training routine began each weekday morning with classes and drill... -- we seem to go into detail about the typical training week for enlisted recruits but not for the officer recruits; I think the article should be consistent in this regard (if the typical training weeks were similar, perhaps give the detail in the officer subsection and then just say in the enlisted subsection that it was similar).
 * You’re right, there is an imbalance of information between the two. The several sources I used in the article seemed short on officer candidate information, but longer on enlisted recruit training information. A lame argument! Anyway, after reviewing most of these sources again, the only addition I found for the officer candidate’s is: They took physical education and they drilled. But, there is an enormous difference between how each was prepared for life in the Navy. While I’m not a Navy historian, I am a U.S. Navy service veteran and have come to know something about this military service. Whether it is relative or not, I can’t say but it is worth mentioning. The officer candidates are midshipmen and go to officer candidate school, where they study a curriculum. The enlisted folks, on the other hand, are recruits and go to boot camp, where they receive training. I’ve scrutinized the six publications that deal with the WAVES and my efforts have not put a dent in this imbalance. One thought might be to summarize some of the enlisted material. What do you think? Pendright (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks for all that, Pendright -- yes, I think you could afford to trim the enlisted info slightly to redress the balance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Slightly is all I could manage! Pendright (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The Assignments section feels a little thin in comparison to the other sections -- if you tell me this is reflective of the sources' weighting then fair enough, otherwise I think it could use a bit more detail, say another paragraph's worth (the issues noted in the second paragraph could be expanded upon as well, perhaps with some examples).
 * I tweaked the first paragraph, added a second paragraph, and reworked the third paragraph. Pendright (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Another became the only female nautical engineer in the entire U.S. Navy -- even if she's not notable in WP terms, it'd be consistent to name her since we've named Grace Hopper in the previous sentence.
 * Elsa Gardner - Pendright (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Most enlisted WAVES worked in traditional jobs -- given the next sentence I assume this means jobs traditionally performed by women in the civilian world, but might be worth clarifying.
 * Most enlisted WAVES worked in traditional jobs (i.e., the jobs most women had done in civilian life), such as clerical work, health care, or storekeeping. Pendright (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Seven WAVE officers and 62 enlisted women died -- at the risk of going into too much detail, can we say something about the causes of death, e.g. transport accidents, or accidents during training?
 * Beyond what is in the article, my sources are silent on accidents and deaths. Pendright (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The wartime assumptions that prohibited the women from duty in any unit designated as having a combat mission carried over with the 1948 Act, which effectively incorporated the women into the service organizations, legally keeping them from being integrated into the heart of the military and naval professions for more than a quarter of a century. -- I'm not sure I understand how women could be "effectively incorporated" into the services and at the same time kept from being "integrated into the heart of the military and naval professions"; perhaps come clarification is needed.
 * I'm still wrestling with this! Pendright (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On 30 July 1948, the Women's Armed Services Integration Act (Public Law 625) was signed into law, allowing the women to serve in the regular Army or Navy on a permanent basis..[59] But, the wartime prohibition of women serving in any unit having a combat mission was carried over into the 1948 Act, which still prohibited the women from serving in any unit designated as having a combat mission. While the legislation was an extraordinary advancement for women, it effectively kept them from being integrated into the mainstream of the military for more than a quarter of a century. Though the WAVES no longer existed, the obsolete acronym continued in popular and official usage until the 1970s.[60] Pendright (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the changes to the article arising from my comments and tweaked/trimmed in places. Assuming I've introduced no errors, I'm happy to support, and thank Pendright for his ready engagement re. the above suggestions/queries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Pendright (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hawkeye7
Support with the caveat that I wrote a small part of the article. During the A-class review I complained about the treatment of racial discrimination, which I felt was being soft-pedalled in line with the sources, many of which felt the issue was too sensitive to handle honestly. Pendright offered to let me rewrite it, which I did. Of course the same sensitivities aroused passions at this review, for which I apologise. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your contribution did cause a bump or two along the way, but it's germane to the story, and you deserve thanks for shining a light on it. Thanks too for your continuing support of this article. Pendright (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.