Wikipedia:Peer review/Michigan State University Group/archive1

===Michigan State University Group===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to polish it up for possible Featured Article status.

Thanks, Kevin Forsyth (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Michigan State University Group/archive1. Comment by Doncram Fascinating! I knew nothing of this before, I read it all the way through. Great story, well told, no obvious grammar or low-level errors that i might have noticed. I wonder, though, is it possible to use a different title. Michigan State University Group is bland, non-descriptive. "MSUG and Vietnam"? "Michigan State University Group's program in Vietnam"? "History of the MSUG and Vietnam"? But I don't know what the options would be. doncram (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it's non-descriptive. Another option, "Michigan State University Vietnam Advisory Group" is a little more descriptive (it's currently a redirect). As far as I can tell, that name was used early on, but was shortened to "Michigan State University Group" by the time the contract was initiated. "MSUG" was always the in-use acronym. As you said, though: bland. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the "Michigan State University Vietnam Advisory Group" was ever used, then it would seem best to use that. It is easy to explain that it was shortened, and then in the article you can use MSUG throughout, after explaining.  That way, the title is interesting because it juxtaposes "Michigan" and "Vietnam" (why would those be in the same name?) and it is properly suggestive of what the group was.  Actually, seeing this name, it does make me think, what did i ever hear about Michigan and Vietnam and then i vaguely remember that SDS bombing of a math or science building... and i can find my way to Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization).  As you doubtless know, the SDS was founded at or highly associated with University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and the bombing was there was the Sterling Hall bombing at that other "M" school, U Wisc Madison.  But I think some passing mention, at least in a "See also" way, of this prominent (probably more prominent)  association of a Michigan  university with the Vietnam war should be included in this article.  I find no hit on abbreviation SDS here and no hit on abbreviation MSUG in the SDS article, while it might be worth linking from there to this article.  And, i have not properly just re-read this article,  but was there any noticeable anti-Vietnam war protests of students at Michigan State, and/or any association with SDS there?  Again, keep up the good work... ;) doncram (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thoughtful comments! I concur with you about the name... Scigliano and Fox (1965), in the very first paragraph of their intro, call it "Michigan State University Vietnam Advisory Group", then immediately (i.e., the very next sentence) start using the shorthand of "MSU Group" and "MSUG". They offer no explanation for the name change (if indeed there was one). Given that theirs is the closest contemporary history of the project (and they are both veterans of it), that seems to me like good enough reason to change the article name. I'm thinking of this for the lead, and requesting comment: "The Michigan State University Vietnam Advisory Group (commonly known as the Michigan State University Group and abbreviated MSUG) ...". Since I'm new to article moves (and Peer Review, for that matter), I wonder: is it better to go through the move process now, or wait until this PR has run its course? Kevin Forsyth (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC) ... eh, what the heck — I'll be bold and move it now. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: your interesting remarks about SDS. I agree that the article could use some expansion with regard to student protest at MSU, and I'm looking for that; too bad the State News's online archives only go back to September 2000. Some of it might better fit into the Walter Adams article, since one of his first tasks as University President was to quiet a student protest when the CIA was openly recruiting at the campus Placement Bureau. I'm sure you're aware that University of Michigan and Michigan State University are wholly separate and unaffiliated institutions (and, frankly, historic rivals). Still, I'm pretty sure SDS had a chapter at MSU, and that might fit in somewhere. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * What makes http://kevinforsyth.net/books/fateful.htm a reliable source?
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I only used that because I liked the phrasing of those two sentences, which I stole from myself. Both are based on information from Ernst (1998). (I must admit on further scrutiny that both read better if I leave the quotes out, and call it fair use.) Kevin Forsyth (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

SGGH
I suggest:


 * "technical assistance" I suspect this phrase is in the citation [1] however as that footnote is a ways away from the term, it appears that wikipedia has placed them in "" without an explanation, would it be possible to attribute it in the prose? The fact that it is in "" suggests many things, and perhaps they could be explained.
 * You're right, it's in both [1] and the title of Scigliano & Fox (1965), but yes the quotes seem suggestive. I pulled out the quotes, and added a wikilink instead; as it turns out, technical assistance links (via redirect) to an article that describes the project's general intent well. Kevin Forsyth (talk)


 * First sentence of the 2nd paragraph is a tad long, and slightly confusing.
 * "When implications later arose that the Central Intelligence Agency had infiltrated MSUG as a front for covert operations," could be worded better.
 * (above 2) Pondering new phrasing now. For the former, it should be easy to split into 2 sentences and fix it. For the latter, I want to be sure that it's clear that these were implications and accusations, but not (necessarily) facts... there's no available proof, and unless the CIA declassifies their files we might never know the truth. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Image could have an expanded caption.
 * Agreed — trouble is, my source for that pic doesn't say when or where it was taken, or what they were discussing. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The dashes need to be wikified into – and so on
 * I'm not sure what you mean. I think most of my em-dash, en-dash, and hyphen use is correct (thanks to assistance from User:Blnguyen and User:DOI bot)... are you saying it should be entered as "& ndash ;", etc., rather than what the insertion tool provides? Kevin Forsyth (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the heading COMIGAL could be the full term, as the other headings are.
 * Done. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:MOS states that ideally headings should not start with "the" so it should preferably be "Staffing issues"
 * Done; also, "The exposé" -> "Exposé". Kevin Forsyth (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Phase One/Two/Three" is a bit clinical, are those actual terms or just used for organisation in the article?
 * Scigliano & Fox (1965) use the Phase terms to divide their overview of the project, since they coincide with the 3 contract periods. My intent with re-using those headings was to emphasize that the time divisions in the article weren't merely arbitrary, but if you think that shortening the headings to only the dates (e.g. "1955–1957") is adequate, I'm all for it. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Four years after MSUG came home, an exposé titled "The University on the Make" if its a document it should be The University on the Make.
 * It's an article from a magazine, so double quotes are correct per MOS:TITLE. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The image caption of the Ramparts cover is good.
 * Thanks! Kevin Forsyth (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could use more wikilinks overall.
 * Good references
 * Are there anymore suitable categories?
 * (above 3) Agreed; thanks; and hmmm.... Kevin Forsyth (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope these ideas help. SGGH speak! 10:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for these ideas! I (almost) entirely agree, and hope you don't mind if I respond with in-line comments, above. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)