Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Kenneth Walker/archive1


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28+ days -MBK004 03:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth Walker

 * Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. Kumioko (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Given that User:Hawkeye7 is easily the primary contributor to this article, is he aware of this nomination and does it have his consent? One should only nominate an article for review if the primary contributor is aware of and consents to the nomination before it is initiated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I dropped him a line on his talk page after I submitted it but your right I should have talked to him before I submitted. Ill bare that in mind next time. If you look at our talk pages he's ok with it though, he just thought it was a little short for FA. --Kumioko (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, so long as Hawkeye is okay with this. Just make sure you ask for the primary contributor's permission first next time. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's okay with me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What we will do is count this as a co-nomination situation since Hawkeye was the primary contributor, and it will count towards an ACM for both him and Kumioko unless Kumioko would like to give full credit to Hawkeye only (which can be arranged). -MBK004 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * United States Army is linked twice in the first paragraph of the lead;
 * I believe this is right. The first link is for the United States Army and the Second is for the United States Army Air forces. --Kumioko (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must not have made it clear what I was refering to. I've fixed it myself, now. It was linked twice, once in the first sentence of the lead ("was a United States Army aviator...") which was then followed by the link to USAAF you refer to, then in the second sentence of the lead another link to US Army appeared (as in "Walker joined the United States Army..."). But its fixed now, so no dramas. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the use of the subject's first name in the Education and early life section;
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Between the World Wars section, it mentions that Walker was reduced in rank, is there any explanation for this?
 * I have attempted to determine why this is but all the references I can find just say he was reverted, which is different than a demotion. I sorta got the indication it was due in part to the upcoming split between the Army and the Army Air Corps and separating the Air officers from teh ground officers but I couldn't identify that conclusively based on the available references. Maybe Hawkeye has something, Ill drop him a line. --Kumioko (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When you hold temporary rank, it is only while performing certain duties. When you cease to be performing those duties, you revert back to your substantive rank. In the Inter-War army, temporary rank usually became substantive after a while, although it was not unknown for that to be a long while. In the wartime army, everybody held temporary rank. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Air War Plans Division section, the word "armoured" appears. As the article mainly uses US English, should this be changed to "armored".
 * I agree Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the South West Pacific section, the emdashs should be unspaced per WP:DASH (in the sentence "Six B-17s and six B-24s — a maximum effort at the time — attacked Rabaul Harbor at noon on 5 January");
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * a couple of the citations need endashes for page ranges per WP:DASH (# 16 Walker pp.15-19; # 30 Kenney pp. 42-45).
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway that is it from me. Sorry to take so long getting to this one. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: all my concerns have been addressed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -- First off, although Hawkeye was not the prime mover for the ACR, he has been involved in it and, whether he is belatedly listed as co-nom or not, I hope he is properly credited (e.g. in terms of ACM tracking) for his editing contribution if this is promoted. As to the article itself, looks good but there are a few things:
 * Quite honestly he can have the credit, I just saw the article was close to the next step and took it for action. --Kumioko (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not essential, but with just one para each of Education and early life, and World War I, I think the two could be combined into Early life and World War I.
 * Done - If anyone has objections they can change it back. --Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen the bit above about reduction in rank; I think we should express it as ...but reverted to second lieutenant..., as "reduced", like "demotion", sounds perjoritive.
 * Byrd says "reverted" but my problem with that is that he didn't actually hold the renk in the first place... Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kenneth Walker remarried and a son called John resulted from this union, but it too ended in divorce shortly after the birth -- suggest something more like Kenneth Walker remarried, which produced another son called John, but this too ended in divorce shortly after the birth as "resulted from this union" sounds terribly formal... I'm assuming of course we have no name for the second wife?
 * Yes, Byrd does not name the second wife. Walker used his first wife as NOK, so no information on the Army file either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do I gather that Walker helped formulate the received wisdom that "the bomber will always get through", but didn't actually say it?
 * Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I maintain that the awards are list/image cruft and should, if retained, be kept out sight in a collapsible section a la Haywood S. Hansell, however I won't oppose on that count as I know the current format has got through in other US military bios.
 * Although I do not agree they are image cruft I am not vehemently opposed to moving them into a collapsable box. I would prefer however, either way, we should display them as they would be worn such as in Smedley Butler or in a table format such as with {{Ross McGinnis]] rather than a stack as they are. --Kumioko (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also dislike the collapsible box. I think, for a mil bio, the awards are an integreal part of the article, and shouldn't be hidden at the end. On that note, I too prefer the Smedley Butler version, showing how they were worn. This style not only provides an accurate version of what the decorations look like, but provides for the names in a subsequent table, where notes can be made if needed to explain seeming discrepancies or interesting comments. It's a personal preference.Cromdog (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree mentioning decorations is integral, but I think the life-size ribbons look more at home in a children's book than in an encyclopedia; we have links for each decoration in the infobox after all, not to mention the text, which show the medal itself as well as the ribbon. The collapsible table is a compromise between two strong opposing viewpoints on this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying that military ribbons are only a appropriate in a childrens book is like saying that the constitution is only a document. To someone who is not or has not been in the military it doesn't make sense but they are very much a part of military life. Also, the infobox does not and should not have a full list of his military decorations. As I stated before, though I don't think its an improvement, I can live with the collapsable table. I added the ribbon display but the command wings look awful so I need to find someone that has the knowhow to clean up the image a bit. Also, I am not sure if the Air force wears all three at the same time so that may need to be adjusted. --Kumioko (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That said, I'm not happy with the MOH and Silver Star citations. At present we have both these printed in full towards the end of the article, yet a block quote from the latter appears in the main body. I think it's far preferable, and more common, to quote an extract of award citations in the main body at the appropriate point without including the whole thing afterwards; there's no need for that when the link takes you to the whole box and dice.
 * Done - I went ahead and integrated them into the body. --Kumioko (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Once we've integrated both award citations into the main body and dropped them from the end, we can move Other honors to a Legacy section following World War II.
 * Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also fixed a couple a link and reworded a couple things. --Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed a few minor typos I spotted, but I have a few questions/comments/concerns to make: That's all I have for the moment.Cromdog (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the 2nd para of the intro, it starts "Walker joined the United States Army after his country entered World War I in 1917. He trained as an aviator and became a flying instructor." I really think this is horribly dry and could use a little touch-up. Something like combining them into a single sentence along the lines of "Walker join the...World War I, where he trained as an aviator and eventually became a flying unstructor." Or something that doesn't just read as a plain statement.
 * In the info box, there's something written in the 'Place of Burial' parameter (Manila American Cemetary). At the end of the article, the text for his Arlington marker reads "Grave Marker for Brigadier General Walker. His body was never recovered so this is simply a marker located in Section MC-36M, Arlington National Cemetery. He is also listed on Tablets of the Missing on Manila American Cemetery and Memorial, Philippines." These two comments are directly contradictory, it seems. Neither Arlington nor Manila have an actual grave, just a marker. Arlington's might be considered a grave marker, but the image text implies that Manila has him listed among the missing, without an individual marker like that at Arlington. I'd suggest the infobox be modified in some way to reflect that his body was never recovered, and that he has a maker at Arlington/Manila.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Made my opinion on the medals/ribbons above.
 * There's a pro forma other articles use say that it is laid out as they would be worn. I think it would be appropriate here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a minor suggestion here, but could there possibly be more pictures added to this article? There's all that stuff in the middle discussing his work for the Army Air Force, and surely there's something around to post? Maybe a snapshot of one of his articles, or of someplace he was stationed/building he worked from, etc? As it stands right now, there's his photo in the infobox, then two shots at the end of the article, and just a wall of text inbetween.
 * On last question. A brigadier general killed in action on a bombing run. Is there anything notable about that in and of itself? I'm merely curious, as my first thought on reading the intro and infobox was 'brigadier general KIA, woah!'
 * Its notable because its fairly unusual that someone of that rank would be doing something dangerous enough to be KIA. A generals mission (brigadier or otherwise) isn't typically to be the one kicking down doors and dropping bombs, the plan the attacks and strategize and then send others to do that. It would be like a general leading an infantry platoon. --Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This did not escape notice at the time. I have added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * The article should state explicitly that the reason he was bumped down to butter bar after WWI was the post-war draw-down of the mobilized army. We all know this, but a lot of people probably won't.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed a number of small issues, I'll be happy to support once the points raised by other reviewers are addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.