Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/School of Advanced Military Studies


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * No consensus to promote at this time AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

School of Advanced Military Studies

 * Nominator(s): Casprings (talk)

This article failed a A class review. That discussion can be found here. Since then the article has gone through editing, a copy edit, and a GA Review, which can be found here. I think some of the major problems with the last A-class review have been fixed. The article reads less promotional, many of the quote boxes have been removed, etc. One problem that has not is the fact that the article does use a phD dissertation for many of its cites. The dissertation comes from a former director of the school, and can be downloaded here. To me, I didn't see this as a problem is insurmountable. I started a discussion at WP:RSN on this that can be found, here.

With that in mind, I would ask for one more look at the article. Thank you in advance for your reviews. If the source problem keeps it from a better assessment, I understand. While certainly my own judgement, I think the level of academic review that a dissertation goes through is enough for it not to stop an A-class rating. Once again, thanks in advance.Casprings (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. I think you're going about this the right way, with reviews and noticeboards, but, on top of the NPOV problems, the tone simply isn't right for a Milhist article, A-class or not. For example, even given that it's in a quote from a promoter: "the most brilliant education for critical thinking in military history, and the most revolutionary change in the planning structure of standing armies since the creation of the Prussian General Staff in the mid 1800". Others will work with you on the sourcing; once that's done, let's have another look at the prose tone. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was clearly written in a favorable tone. While I have tried to remove some of that language, any help on prose to make it NPOV would be welcome.  I agree with your statement on that example.  The rest of the section gets the point across.  But, that particular endorsement is a little out there and is POV in nature, given it is given by a US General officer.  Casprings (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * Can you add the ISBN and OCLC# for: Benson, Kevin (2009). School of Advanced Military Studies Commemorative History: 1984–2009. Kansas: United States Army Command and General Staff College. Its still 1/3 of the citations and its a sketchy source if no one can actually find it (I still cannot find this in Worldcat). Assuming its an academic history monograph it should have a bibliography you could use to diversify those citations to a more reasonable percentage. Kirk (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is the source: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/Events/SAMS25th/SAMS25YearsHistory.pdf
 * Thanks, it doesn't have a lot of citations which doesn't help. I think you should change the bibliography to reflect the type of material - was it published as a pamphlet? Kirk (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * *Given the nature of the publication (it is a pamphlet), I am starting to see that there is a source problem and the article doesn't deserve to go forward as a A quality article.  I have knowledge of the school, so I know the information.  However, if it can't be sourced, there is a problem.
 * * Check your style guides how to add pamphlet/[Pamphlet] in there somewhere; you'll probably have better luck if you diversify the sources. Kirk (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sorry, but the same problems in all the previous reviews concerning sourcing still exist. Thomas E. Ricks' new book The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today has several pages discussing the school and its influence which would be useful as an independent source. I also agree with Dank's comment in regards to the article's tone. Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are right now.  For the article to continue to develop there needs to be more sources and not just from a former director.  The ricks book might be a place to start.Casprings (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.