Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Walter Bedell Smith


 * 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.

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Walter Bedell Smith

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Do not usually nominate American articles for A class review. Walter Bedell Smith was an American general who served as Eisenhower's chief of staff at SHAEF. I did not create the article but rewrote it in 2010 while updating articles on SHAEF personnel. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * Crosswell gave a talk on cable TV on his bio of Beetle that I really enjoyed, I'm looking forward to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never met him. I believe he has a new edition of his bio coming out soon, but I only have the old one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Smith and Dykes worked in partnership to create and organize a secretariat and to build the Combined Chiefs of Staff organization.": I don't know what this means, and I'm thinking that the 4 related sentences could be reduced to 3.
 * "Its structure was generally American, but with some British aspects.": I don't know what this means.
 * I have added a bit of explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "He acquired a reputation as a tough and brusque manager, and was often referred to as Eisenhower's "hatchet man". However, he was also capable of representing Eisenhower on missions requiring diplomatic skill.": It would be best not to duplicate the language from the lead.
 * Why? I often cut and paste bits of the article into the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's safer at FAC (and also better per most style guides) to rewrite a little for sentences that have words or phrases that are emphasized, that the FAC reviewers might remember, such as "hatchet man". You can often copy unremarkable sentences from the lead with no problem.  I'll do it if you like, although you probably know better how you want to rephrase. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would probably be best to say briefly what "Ultra" was.
 * It is linked... Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We tried to express what we're looking for in the checklist (that is, add a quick description in addition to the link if the reader will have no idea what you're talking about). So that's the judgment call, and it could go either way, a lot of readers who would get this far in the article will have heard of Ultra ... but I'm guessing some people (including, notably, FAC reviewers :) won't know it, so I added "(British codebreaking)".  But if that's a digression or insults the reader's intelligence, feel free to revert.  People don't like to read things that make them feel like they're not smart enough to get it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "750 officers and 6,000 other ranks": help me with the slang here, guys ... I've seen "ranks" meaning non-officers in British ship articles. Is it also common in AmEng?
 * I believe "other ranks" is the NATO term for anyone other than commissioned officers, but I thought "enlisted" was more common in an American military context. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, changed it to "enlisted men". - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Technical point is that they are not quite the same thing. See enlisted rank and other ranks. The issue is about where they count the small number of warrant officers. I will have to check Pogue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would "6,750 men, including 750 officers" work? - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Checked. It's okay as it is. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "The former was considered to be more successful.": by whom? (or, reword without "considered")
 * Will do. There was an inquiry. The whole segment is a bit overblown, but some editors misunderstood it, so I wanted to make it clear what Smith was saying. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, Generaloberst Alfred Jodl and Generaladmiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg.": English please. My preference for the German terms would be in either a note or on the other side of the links, but since the foreign terms in this article aren't oppressive, I wouldn't object if you want to put the German in parentheses after the English terms.
 * Well, they will be linked, but the point is that Generaloberst has no equivalent in English. I've translated it as "Colonel General". Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Post-war" is an adjective (in AmEng, and I believe in any Eng), and it's not hyphenated in AmEng. Postwar years would work as a section title (if we're talking about just a few years); Postwar can't work since it's not an adverb. (I made the edit, I'm just mentioning this because it keeps coming up, in a variety of articles.)
 * I don't like after the war because that sounds to me like after the war ie the Great War. Is there an American term for "Public service"? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, public service means (in this context) government jobs in AmEng, that works. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Astonishingly, four months after the outbreak of war, the Agency had produced no coordinated estimate of the situation in Korea.": Why was it astonishing that a new Washington agency didn't do its job competently and quickly?
 * Good point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind of a pain to do this much work and not be able to support, but I agree with HJ that some of the prose is choppy, and it's hard to make out what some of it means. I can revisit this after people have had a chance to look it over and respond to HJ's and my concerns.  I understand that a lot of this wasn't your writing, Hawkeye, and we're doing the best we can here.  Here and here are my contributions. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've checked the text, and everything I brought up is dealt with. I don't want to support or oppose until I see what you and Harry do with the prose flow; it could be better in places. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked over at WT:MHC if I can start doing my copyediting in the last 24 hours of the A-class review, so that the article hasn't changed too much and is still fresh in my mind when I review it for FAC. If folks go along with that, then I'll have another look at this one when it gets listed there for closing. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you'd get the commas after "Fort Sheridan, Illinois", "Fort Benning, Georgia", and any other commas after a city-state pair starting at World War II. The ones I noticed were all linked, if that makes them easier to find.
 * Question for you: is it "D.C." or "DC" in AmEng? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Either is fine. If there's a comma before, then there's a comma (or something) after. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Oops, I said everything was dealt with but the comment I just moved to the end still hasn't been dealt with, maybe there was a reversion. I'm going through my final pass now. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I got the second commas.  These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per choppy prose—some sentences are very short, others run on too long and the phrasing feel a bit formulaic. I'll give a few examples, but this isn't an exhaustive list
 * First sentence of early life runs on a bit.
 * Ranks shouldn't be capitalised unless attached to a name per MOS:CAPS
 * Just to clarify, "the director of the X" isn't capitalized, but proper names such as "Director of X" are always capitalized. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeeed. "Second Lieutenant Smith" would be capitalised, but not "Smith was a second lieutenant". HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   09:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto President
 * Too many sentences start with a date and the sentence structure doesn't vary a lot throughout
 * Very choppy from second paragraph of WWI until the second paragraph under "Washington"—lots of short sentences, interspersed with longer (often too long) ones
 * Prose improves from here, but gets choppy again at the end of the "North African Theater" section and then again in the middle of the "European Theater" section
 * Full stops go after the quote marks per MOS:LQ
 * Other comments
 * I question the necessity of the "Between the wars" header
 * Pro forma. The bios are normally laid out that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did he spend 9 years as a captain?
 * I've added a bit. It appears in some bios that I hadn't thought it worth mentioning. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why was he unhappy in Washington?
 * Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First sentence of North African Theater doesn't specify what Eisenhower was SAC of and the link goes to the generic term
 * I think another editor already changed this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you meant the European Theater. added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This decision was greatly resented by many Americans, particularly at 12th Army Group, because...?
 * Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll finish this off later. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've gone over the whole article to smooth out the prose. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing coordinator's note: HJ has been without internet access since Hawkeye posted this acknowledgement and made changes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Anotherclown (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good, only minor comments from me:
 * "Smith was wounded by shell fragments in the attack two days later." Seems grammatically incorrect. This might work better slightly reworded as "Smith was wounded by shell fragments in an attack two days later.";
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * prose here seems a little off: "which was consisted of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chiefs of Staff Committee." Maybe: "which consisted of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chiefs of Staff Committee.";
 * Changed to "which consisted of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chiefs of Staff Committee meeting as a single body. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose again here (and capitalisation) "Smith was empowered to draw up an Armistice between Italy and Allied armed forces", specifically "Armistice between Italy and Allied armed force". Maybe an "armistice between Italy and the Allied armed forces". The same language is used in the lead so you might consider changing it there too; and
 * De-capitalised "armistice". Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You might consider wikilinking "Communication zone" to explain to readers what it actually is.
 * It is already linked in the NATO section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Comments:
 * no dabs, ext links all work (no action required);
 * images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in, but it is not a requirement: ;
 * ALT text added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the images are correctly licenced (no action required);
 * in the World War I section, this seems a bit awkward to me: "Smith was returned to the United States for service with the War Department General Staff for duty with the Military Intelligence Division" (repetition of the word "for");
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * there is some inconsistency in presentation: "Washington, DC," as opposed to "Washington, DC." (comma v. full stop)
 * Typo. Should have been a comma. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * in the World War II/Washington section, this sounds awkward to me: "Combined Chiefs of Staff, which was consisted of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chiefs of Staff Committee meeting as a single body." (Perhaps change to: "Combined Chiefs of Staff, which consisted of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chiefs of Staff Committee meeting as a single body";
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * in the North African section, this seems a bit abrupt: "One cause of the debacle at Kasserine was faulty intelligence at AFHQ, where over-reliance on Ultra codebreaking sources..." Perhaps it could be smoothed out by using a linking phrase or clause, for instance: "Eisenhower also relieved his Chief of Intelligence (G-2), Brigadier Eric Mockler-Ferryman, pinpointing faulty intelligence at AFHQ as a contributing factor in the defeat at Kasserine. In Mockler-Ferryman's place, Brigadier Kenneth Strong was appointed";
 * Done.
 * in the European Theater, I think these two sentences should be merged: "Heavy casualties since the start of Overlord resulted in a critical shortage of infantry replacements, and even before the crisis situation created by the Ardennes Offensive. Steps were taken to divert men from Communications Zone units." (The first sentence doesn't go anywhere);
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Death and legacy section, I think there is a typo here: "Smith was been portrayed on screen by Alexander Knox" ("was" is the issue);
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Notes section there is "Garland & Smith 1965", but in the References section this work has a publication date of 1963;
 * Should be 1965. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Notes "Garland & Smith 1965", but in the References "Garland and Smyth";
 * Should be "Smyth" Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * in the References Crosswell 2010 is presented, but doesn't seem to have been specifically cited;
 * Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * in the References, "Smith 1956" is presented, but it doesn't appear to be specifically cited in the Notes section;
 * It is referred
 * Are you sure? I can see "Smith 1950" in the citations, but not "Smith 1956".
 * in the References, I think that the title "Eisenhower's six great decisions: Europe, 1944-1945" should be "Eisenhower's Six Great Decisions: Europe, 1944-1945" per WP:MOSCAPS;
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * in the References, I think that the title "Bedell Smith and functionalist dilemmas" should be "Bedell Smith and Functionalist Dilemmas" per above;
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * in the References, watch out for overlinking, for instance "Westport, Connecticut", "Greenwood Press", "United States Army Center of Military History". At FAC they might have a problem with it;
 * I don't usually take the US articles to FAC, although I did for Leslie Groves. My FAC queue is so long it is unlikely to be sent there until 2012. if at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's not a huge issue for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the citations appear to be linked using the harvnb template, however, currently they are not fully functional links. If you wish for the links to highlight the full reference in the Reference section when clicked upon, some more wikicode needs to be added to the References section. This follows the format: "| ref=CITEREFPogue1954", or for multiple authors "| ref=CITEREFAncellMiller1996" . (This is not a requirement, just a suggestion.) AustralianRupert (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk)
 * This review is due to be listed for closing (28 day rule) in three days. Is anyone in a position to respond to these comments? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be okay now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My comments have been addressed. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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.