Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve


 * 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.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

United States Marine Corps Women&
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

Nominating this article for A-class review on behalf of per. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the United States Marine Corps Women’s Reserve (WR); its ebb and flow from inception to demobilization. Formed in February 1943, it was the last of the four wartime U.S. women’s military services to do so. Its objective was to free-up male Marines in the continental U.S. for duty overseas for the duration of WWII, plus six moths. The WR did not have an official nickname, the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps said they were real marines and didn’t need one. The peak strength of the WR was around 19,000 members. Pendright (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:Ruth_Cheney_Streeter.jpg: any more details available from Rutgers to support the given tag?
 * No additional details evident! Pendright (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * File:Frank_V._McKinless_Swears_in_Women_Marines,_February_1943_(6842479845).jpg: if this is an official USMC photo, should it not be PD? Same with File:Woman_Marine_sentry,_circa_1943_(6049891503).jpg, File:Assembling_a_machine_gun,_circa_1943_(6049891599).jpg, File:"The_Wrench_and_Hammer_Brigade",_circa_1943_(6050443802).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * All of the above are official USMC photographs and in the PD; now each is so identified with the proper information. Thank you. Pendright (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've added the PD-USGov-Marines template to the image description pages. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Pendright (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * suggest adding alt text to the images. Although it isn't a strict requirement, it does help the vision impaired
 * Added alt text to each image - Pendright (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "than any fashioned by the WAC": remove the link for "WAC" here, as it is already linked in the leadership section
 * Double link removed - Pendright (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * in the Uniforms section, the block quote in the first paragraph probably needs a citation
 * Citation added to quote - Pendright (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * is there an ISBN or OCLC number for the Stremlow and Litoff & Smith works?
 * Stremlow: added OCLC
 * Liftoff and Smith: see below Pendright (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * place and location of publication for the Litoff and Smith work?
 * The Litoff and Smith work turns out not to be a stand-a-lone piece of work, but part of the National Archives and Records Administration publication, which is already a part of the Article’s bibliography. So, I replaced the Litoff and Smith work with another reference. Pendright (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and suggestions - Pendright (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Support based on the below Abstain (see below). Review limited to A1 (quality, reliability, occasionally ) / A2 (scholarly historiography)
 * It is my current habit to abstain or decline on reviews as my review for quality emphasises scholarly history (HQRS / historiography) and while my comments are actionable they may unintentionally exceed the criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally, and I hate to say this, this reads as dependent upon the sources that the chief editorial group read, rather than dependent upon the sources available. Archaic, or en_US inclusions, potentially from copyvio free sources, may indicate that the article has not been thoroughly checked as MILHIST's quality suggests?  ("inasmuch," below.)  As indicated above, I am abstentionist: because my standards may be too high.  But consider this.  And do note that I "take" commentary on my reviews well.  Other editors have ground the flour.  And I'm whinging about the flavour of the bread?  Please don't take this review harshly, I loved reading the article.
 * What a lovely institutional response above and beyond the era's bigotry. I particularly like Holcomb's interaction with the Marines who happened to be women, and the Marines' culture of, well, razzing and taking razzing over the nicknames.  Then again I'm an Australian English speaker.  A2: Should scholars or grognards have recorded grossly impolite nicknames I hope you've included them.
 * A2 not actionable: was there any interesting historiographical issues raised in the sources you read of WEIGHT to justify a discussion or section on this? In particular given the subject and the interface between womens' and military history this may be present.  Consider the introduction to Soderbergh's PhD thesis published as the book you cite for this?  ALT: search for the PhD thesis.  (Title is highly suggestive of a doctoral work).
 * A1 Holcomb's quote in lede needs sourcing
 * Citation added - Pendright (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A1 "History of the Women Marines". Women Marines Association. Miscited.  WMA is a corporate author, not just the publisher.
 * A1 failed cite in footnotes: unable to locate in source. Supply details of how to locate claim.
 * Reference replaced - Pendright (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A1 Lacy is marginal. But on the right side of the margin for the claim used.  Beware the Clean Wehrmacht myth about using commendation related material though.
 * An editor other than myself inserted this citation; I have had no access to or do I possesses the publication referenced in the bibliography section. Pendright (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A1 National Archives and Records Administration (1996). Inappropriate short name in footnotes.  Miscited (editors take priority for identification).  Probable primary source compilation.  If the claim is from a PRIMARY in compilation grossly miscited (cite the compiled text).  If the claim is from a PRIMARY acceptable for obvious: if it was in the least controversial it would be a fatal problem.  If a PRIMARY why haven't appropriate quotes been used from the oral history for illustrative purposes WP:HISTIP.
 * Because I felt those I had selected were relevant to the story. Besides, oral history usually presents interpretive challenges and, of curse, memories are fallible. Take me for instance; I joined the U.S. Navy in 1943, yes 1943, that's 75 years ago. I'm considered to have a good memory for my age, but time has blurred it too. In any event, both types are important - but circumstances could decide whether it's one or the other. Pendright (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A1 Frederiksen Ferris. Miscited in footnotes.  Double bunger surnames get double bunger footnotes.
 * See comments on Lacy.
 * An editor other than myself inserted this citation; I have had no access to or do I possesses the publication referenced in the bibliography section. Pendright (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A1 Soderbergh, Peter, A. (1992). is miscited. Publisher name
 * Spelling corrected - Pendright (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A1 Stremlow, Colonel Mary V., USMCR (Ret). (1994). is miscited. The OCLC links to a 1943 poster print.  FUTON searching indicates the work exists but not as cited.
 * Miscited in footnotes: whom is Strejlow, p. 39
 * Stremlow - Pendright (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A1 Texts: Stremlow A History of the Women Marines, 1946-1977 (Washington, D.C.: History and Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 1986), and Coping With Sexism in the Military (New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 1990) unused? Consider.
 * The legislation that established the wartime U.S. Marine Corps Women's Reserve provided that members could serve for the duration of World War II, plus six months. By August 1946, only 300 members remained. By law, the wartime Women's Reserve no longer existed. However, such members were asked to stay on active duty by the Corps. They all volunteered to stay in anticipation of legislation that might give them permanent status in the Corps. For the next two years, these women served in an undetermined status. But in July 1948, the Women's Armed Forces Act became law, which allowed these and other women to serve in the regular Marine Corps. The publication to which you refer is not about the wartime WR. It’s about how the Corps subsequently accepted women into the regular Marine Corps, but failed to intergrade them until the 1970’s. Pendright (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A2 Consider Vicki L. Friedl (1996)?
 * Than you - Pendright (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A1 in text issue, "In the Free a Marine to Fight publication" books or other major works take italics in your style
 * Italics added - Pendright (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * External links has an extraneous em-dash " — ". The rest of your style is en-dash.
 * Fixed - Pendright (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A1 "Don't ever complain to me…your ability." cite at quote end. Taylor, J.'s probable quotation of her father as a PRIMARY deserved distinct acknowledgement as your readers will want to read Taylor, J.'s claims where they were published.  Also, remember, Taylor, J (date) "interview" in work editor etc….  Taylor, J is cited for herself, not for the author/editor who compiled the oral history.  That's if it is in an oral… hang on it is in Stremlow, so it is beside the point.  Stremlow is responsible.  But I didn't reverse myself because as this article uses oral history / primary source compilations you need to know this for next time ;).
 * Right, thank you! - Pendright (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Style: for an Australian English speaker, "WR" as the standard noun grates. hard.  "Womens' Reserve"  "Reserve"  etc.?  Consider.  There's a reason why people render acronyms as "double u arr," as opposed to "wuh ruh".  it is to create a grappleable noun to latch onto.  I'd suggest "Reserve," as the institution was (after proving) demonstrably anti-sexist for its time?
 * WR changed to Reserve - Pendright (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Style: "The first group of six women officers recruited was given direct commissions in the WR." Grates in en_AU.  Consider "The first six women officers recruited were."  "The first group of officers recruited was."  You avoid a nasty collective noun singular/plural verb issue in varieties of english.
 * Done - Pendright (talk)
 * List format, "In charge of public relations was…" "training [no verb], Captain Charlotte D. Gower;" consider was for the verbs? Or drop the requirement for verbs by "Assignments were: …public relations, First Lieutenant E. Louise Stewart;"
 * Changed to Assignments were: Pendright (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A2: apparent contradiction to a civvie "they turned out to be winter uniforms." "Neither officers nor enlisted members had winter dress uniforms."  Clarify with "they turned out to be winter [?regular|?service] uniforms."  My hesitance is from lack of culturally specific knowledge regarding "regular" uniforms' culturally specific status.  Given that it deserves a section, and its importance to the institution and women, its a clarification point for the interested outsider.
 * They reads: Reserve recruits were promised uniforms upon reaching boot camp, but that was not always the case. In fact, during the summer of 1943, some recruits had to train in civilian clothing until summer uniforms were available. When the new uniforms arrived, they turned out to be winter uniforms instead of the summer uniforms expected. Pendright (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Each Reserve member, officer and enlisted, had a winter uniform and a summer uniform. But, an officer was allowed to modify her winter uniform into a dress uniform by simply adding a few trappings. So, with added trappings, the regular, winter uniform of an officer became a dress uniform. This option was not available to the enlisted member. Pendright (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The summer uniform, on he other hand, had three styles for the officers: a regular, summer uniform that both officers and enlisted wore. But, officers were allowed to modify the regular summer uniform into two more style variations, but it was still the summer uniform. The enlisted members had no options.Pendright (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The terms regular, service, and dress uniforms are used interchangeably by reference sources but, in actuality, there was only a winter uniform and a summer uniform with variations in style.

Pendright (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Awkward "just so-called." Consider alternatives.
 * Fixed - Pendright (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A2: "Those who did not meet the requirements had two choices: transfer to enlisted basic training or await discharge." any HQRS evidence regarding degradation rates / comparative to Marine potential officers who happened to be males?
 * The failure rate between women and men in similar circumstances was not dealt with in any of the reference material I used. As a matter of fact, there was not an abundance of publications on the U.S. Marine Corps Women’s Reserve itself. Pendright (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarity "Candidates studied … naval personnel" Either this lacks a noun: personnel "categorisation"; or, it is unintelligible to a civvie.
 * Now reads: Candidates studied the following: naval organization and administration; naval personnel; naval history and strategy; naval law and justice; and naval ships and aircraft. :::Pendright (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "On 26 March, 21 platoons of women Marines" we've established that they're Marines through Holcomb. Is the qualifier necessary.  To mangle Full Metal Jacket, "Is there a male?  How about Marine?"  Correspondingly, "A total of 214 women Marine Corps officers".  This is a choice, but, given Holcomb's adamant claim, and the cultural portrayal of "You're all equally worthless/worthy."  Seems a bit off?  Similarly with my suggestion of "Reserve," as a noun above.  And at "First group of Marine Corps women's Reserve officer candidates"
 * Done - Pendright (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Style consistency check. "identification of aircraft, and" There are a load of "; and," and "; or," lists in this article.  Double check on "; and …" versus "; and, …"
 * Removed, will double check! Pendright (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Style check: "esprit de corps." Does the style guide you use consistently suggest italicisation of foreign phrases?
 * Done - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "The camp was named…" Why do I care. Oh in the next sentence it is explained it is new to the war, consider, "The [new] camp was named…"
 * Done - Pendright (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "What did not change from the time at Mount Holyoke and Hunter was the hostile behavior of the drill instructors towards the women." Hang on a minute gov.  The prior hostile behaviour hasn't been mentioned up article.  Damn interesting.  Shouldn't it be mentioned prior?
 * Hostile behavior comments added for the candidates and enlisted member sections. Pendright (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "BAMS (Broad Assed Marines)" mention this spelling out above in the first use, "BAMS" at first use is a polite phrase, we ought not to censor the spelling out.  Those marines copped their shit off arseholes before the arseholes learnt to respect them, the reader ought to be inducted into it in first use, not 3/4 of the way down the article.  In particular Holcomb's theme from the lede in the article means it should be spelled out at first use.  Same with any other shit talking.
 * Done - Pendright (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "other crude references." If weighty and in reliable sources, spell them out. They are of interest.  "Clean Wehrmacht" and all.
 * Will do - Pendright (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Women worked mainly in offices, classrooms, hospitals, retail stores, libraries, and beauty shops." I call bullshit as someone with a background in mid 20th century labour history by "blue/white" collar status.  Rosie the Riveter. This needs a cite.  And needs serious consideration.  Again, this is perhaps above and beyond A class
 * Cited -Pendright (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps." Probable poor list comparator.  I had learnt as an outsider and undergraduate that the US Marine Corps was a part of the Navy.  Improve?
 * Improved - Pendright (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not separate sentences, "The WR strength on 1 June 1945 was 17,672. Of this number 1,342 were engaged in occupations" They're fundamentally linked.  I don't want to know the WR strength at this date.  The strength matters to me because of their engagements in comparison to the desired specialised needs in prior sentences.
 * Joined sentences - Pendright (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Clause order incorrect, "While Public Law 689 authorized the creation of the WR, it also prohibited its members from serving outside the continental United States." consider, "WR members were prohibited from serving outside…"  The reader is interested in the prohibition, not the authorisation.  As detailed discussion of the prohibition, not the authorisation follows.
 * Revised - Pendright (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Style, double check terminating punctuation in quotes for standard in your article, "worth all the trouble and cost"."
 * Caught one, thanks! Pendright (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Style "inasmuch" versus "in as much." Consider.
 * Done -Pendright (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "commit to an 18-month tour" who did this? No appropriate noun target in semi-colon clause set.  " members had to " > " members had to: "
 * Fixed - Pendright (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "battle-ready men of the corps for action….[68]" Cited in, surely? Who wouldn't want to know where to grill FDR's claim?  Same with Holcomb.  The primary source is worth citing, sourcing, in itself for the eager beaver?
 * Done - Pendright (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Review complete. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I have responded to all of the deficiencies you noted. If not, I stand ready to continue trying. In any event, I found your review to be instructive. Pendright (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm down for 30-36 hours with work and no adequate connection/device, but will respond when I'm back. I'm sure it's supportable (maybe only with a couple of fixits required) after all your wonderful work! Fifelfoo (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It reads beautifully, and I'm very happy to support. Thank you for producing an article that expanded my knowledge! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Pendright (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from JennyOz

Hi Pendright, I just made a few minor tweaks. I did them individually so that you can easily undo any you don't agree with. Here are a few minor comments, none are deal-breakers so I'm happy to add my support.
 * Free a Marine to Fight - you've added italics for it as a slogan rather than the publication. I can't find in MOS any mention of slogans and mottos so don't know if they take italics but I don't think it matters in scheme of things.
 * Removed - Pendright (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * esprit de corps - MOS actually uses esprit de corps as an example of a foreign phrase so common in English that it doesn't need italics, on here but it's no problem to leave it italicised.
 * Removed Pendright (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmmm the Stremlow pdf now only goes to page 20? I'm pretty sure I read it from beginning to end when doing other comments on talk page. I've tried to reload but the last page/s seems to be missing. I was able to find another copy here which I used to make the tweaks to places women previously 'by custom' worked, and the typo re supervising men.
 * Link replaced: Nice catch! You’re correct in that the copy of Free A Marine to Fight used had 41 pages. Thanks for ferreting this one out. Pendright (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Pendright, I was really hoping the missing pages of the Stremlow pdf was only a temporary glitch, and I just wrote the note about it for other reviewers/ promoters. Now that you've swapped the url from the marines.mil copy to the nps.gov one, it has caused a problem. The new nps.gov version does not have page numbers. Eeek! That obviously ruins all the cites. I had a look at the original pdf again. I tested changing the last digit (1) in the url to a 2, and voila, there were the pages 21 to 41!
 * So..., I think you need to undo the change, ie back to the marines.mil url. Then use it for citations of anything on pages 1-20. Then have a second entry in the bibliography for any Stremlow cites on pages 21 to 41 linking to this.
 * (Of course this problem wouldn't exist if at the bottom of page 20 on the first pdf (ie the original) had a link like "for pages 21-40 please click here" to jump to second pdf.)
 * But before you do anything, let's ask the so helpful is this is correct. AustralianRupert, sorry to bother you but could you please advise how to handle this one booklet that is spread over 2 pdfs? JennyOz (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, would it be possible to locate a copy of the old 41 page document using Web Archive, perhaps? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rupert, sadly not found. There are captures back to 2015 but are split into the two sets. Actually, I've just noticed that the link was only added to the bibliography 9 July so when I did my read through (per talk page) prior to that, perhaps I'd found the nps.gov version online and simply searched for phrases when page numbers not available. Rats, I think we have to use the 2 pdfs.

JennyOz (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh well, two pdf entries might be the best solution here, although if the work is available as a hard copy, wouldn't the link really just be a courtesy link? In this regard, potentially it doesn't really matter per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. I could be wrong, though. do you have any thoughts on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I misread your comments. I should have queried you further. Sorry!  Two pdf entries seem like the best solution at hand. Pendright (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur, use two links for the courtesy link. Also try to archive them? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Congrats on this article (and your patience with me!), I've enjoyed it. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.