Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military brat (U.S. subculture)

Military brat (U.S. subculture)
Prior review: WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military brat (U.S. subculture)/Archive 1

I'm getting ready to re-nominate this article for FA and would like some serious nitpicks on this article... particularly around the issue of prose. Balloonman 06:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Looks very good now; a few minor points to fix, though: The prose seems a little choppy (too many short and simple sentences, and so forth); but I tend to go for rather convoluted prose, so take my opinion on this with a grain of salt. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are still some citation needed tags that need to be dealt with.
 * If possible, get rid of the "See also" section; if it's not worth mentioning in the text, it's generally not worth mentioning at all.
 * The image captions need to be copyedited. In particular, the triple-hyphen is simply wrong; the typewriter version of the em-dash is a double hyphen (but it's better to just insert a proper em-dash there, in any case).


 * Thanks Kirill... could you point out a few of the places where you thought it was choppy? I tend to go for short and simple, not liking convoluted prose, but if it is choppy and needs to be longer... ;-) Balloonman 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, one example that stood out would be the first paragraph of the "Classism" section: "Military life is strictly segregated by class, centered around one's rank.[45] The facilities provided for officers and enlisted personnel differ dramatically. For example, on base housing for officers will be significantly nicer than those for enlisted personnel. The officers' housing will generally be more accessible to base activities, larger in size, and better landscaped. Occasionally, on larger bases, the officers' housing will be broken down into different categories. Senior officers housing may be slightly larger and more opulent than their lower ranking counterparts. On the largest bases, there might be a row of opulent houses referred to as 'Colonels' Row' or 'Generals' Row.' In these houses the highest ranking personnel on the base reside. On the other end of the spectrum, are the enlisted quarters. Oftentimes enlisted personnel might be assigned apartments and only then if space is available.[45]" I'd probably chop the number of separate sentences here in half by using more semicolons and nested clauses; but this may be a matter of personal preference, so I wouldn't worry too much about trying to impose a more complicated structure if that's not a writing style that you're in favor of. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Made those changes... BTW is there a guideline on the "See Also" section. When this went up for FAC before, it was criticized because it didn't have a see also section (I had removed it based on your oriignal peer review comments.) Balloonman 10:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandy
Congratulations on your persistent hard work.

I still don't like the idea of the parenthetical U.S. subculture in the title, and hope someone will come up with something to address that.

I also dislike the non-standard placement of the Table of Contents; in fact, there must be something somewhere in WP:MOS about that, and if there's not, there should be. Please use a standard layout for lead and table of contents.

I just corrected a section heading for WP:MSH - please try to watch items pertaining to WP:MOS and WP:LAYOUT :-) I also deleted several articles from See also which are already linked in the text:  See also should be minimal, and confined to articles not already linked in the text.

I correct some refs that pointed to the same source - pls remember to used named refs for those cases.

Many of the images have non-standard placement: I don't know where to find the guiding policy on this, but I've seen them corrected often when on the main page - you have images placed so that they extend into section headings, distorting the section headings.

I switched some Lambert (author) to Lamberg, and used named refs for those.

Be sure to include last access date on all web sources, for example, Lamberg (2004) p 1541. See also The National Childhood Traumatic Stress Network Pls doublecheck that all web sources have last access date.

Now, looking at prose:
 * (Do all brats live overseas, or does article apply equally to brats whose parents may have only been stationed in the US?) Having had the opportunity to live around the world, military brats often have a breadth of experiences unmatched by most teenagers (I'd also prefer "other teenagers" to "most teenagers", feels less absolute - my children have lived around the world, and so have most of their friends, and they aren't brats.)
 * Consistency - you use U.S. and U.S.A. - better to pick one and stick with it.
 * (This needs to be reworded to reflect methodological limitations on all broad-based - epidemiological - vs. biased samples - they aren't impossible, they are just very difficult and *very* expensive.) While research is conducted utilizing scientific methodology, there is risk of biased samples because truly random samples on adult brats is impossible. (I suggest) Even research that is conducted using scientific sampling methods may contain bias because of the difficulty in conducting epidemiological studies across broad-based population samples.  (Or something like that - you can ask  or  for help on that wording.
 * Since the Department of Defense does not track or monitor former brats, any study on adult brats is based upon self identification.[12] (add on something to the effect of) hence, may be biased towards subjects who self-identified because of psychological problems, resulting in underrepresentation of brats who don't have psychological issues. (or something like that)
 * (Incorrect use of e.g.; better to just say for example) (E.g. nigger, queer, redneck and geek)
 * (repetitive prose - those groups, those groups) that recently were viewed as hurtful to those groups. Those groups have various degrees of success to their efforts,
 * (Connect these thoughts with a semi-colon) Mormon, Methodist, Sooner, Tar Heel, Quaker, cowboy, Christian, Tory, and Whig were originally insults; by embracing the insulting term, the target group takes control over one's self image and denies others of the ability to define them.
 * (Because is the wrong connection here, and may not always be true - change) Non-military personnel may find the term “brat” insulting if they do not understand the term in this context.
 * (I'm not a grammaria, but not sure "their" is correct here: culture - their?) Military culture has reclaimed the term to make it their own.
 * (awkward) For example, while civilians may grow up in the same house their entire youths,
 * (Difference between the two is not defined) Eighty percent of brats describe their father as "authoritarian" (not to be mistaken with "authoritative")
 * (Avoid overgeneralizing - *can be* much greater ???) The consequences of misbehavior for a military brat are much greater than for civilian children.
 * (This is the kind of "study result" that needs to be very well defined - what kind of study was this, how large was the sample, and what kinds of behaviors were examined ??? - A statement like this can't be taken at face value - the strength of the study needs to be examined. Was this study controlled, replicated, what was the sample size, was it retrospective or prospective, did it use standardized and validated measurement instruments and face to face interviews, etc - give me some of the verbiage from the actual studies, and I'll help you phrase this better, to help avoid overgeneralizing or everextending conclusions depending on methodological limitations of studies.)  Research into military brats has consistently shown them to be better behaved than their civilian counterparts. [3]  (also, remove spaces between punctuation and refs - I'll do that with Gimmetrow's ref fixer, now that I've seen this one.)
 * This is a very common theme in the research. The citation I provided actually lists a number of the studies on the subject and the consistency of the result. Balloonman 10:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Again, to avoid overgeneralizing, we need to understand this Dr.'s study sample - maybe s/he only dealt with the worst of the worst - again, we need to know more about the study methodology and sample before making broad sweeping statements about all military children. Rather than relying on Wertsch for this, it would be good to locate the specifics of the exact study, in order to get a sense of how strong this conclusion is.) A military psychologist publishing in the American Journal of Psychology concluded that 93% of his brat patients came from military families where the parents were overly authoritarian.
 * He was basing it upon a review of his patients, not a formalized study. Actually, looking at what I have, it wasn't just his patients, but those at his clinic.Balloonman 10:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Don't know what this means - what is the overarching community in their adulthood?) When brats grow up, however, these boundaries normally disappear and are replaced by an overarching brat community.
 * (The first two sentences can be combined, and the third has prose problems) In 1948, President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 integrating the military and mandating equality of treatment and opportunity. Shortly thereafter, military children began growing up in closely confined integrated schools and neighborhoods. Military law to makes it illegal to make a racist remark or not intervene when someone else does.
 * (Want to know how large this study was, whether it was retrospective or prospective, and from where he drew his sample - where these kids who presented with issues, or were they randomly chosen? Give me some of the wording from the actual study, and I'll help you address it.) Sociologist Morton Ender conducted the largest scientific study to date
 * (First sentence contradicts some other statements made in the article, second sentence is a fragment.) Sociologist Henry Watanabe showed that the psychological profile of military brats matches that of their civilian peer. But that growing up in a mobile community offers brats opportunites and experiences generally unavailable in the civilian world. (Again, depends on the sample population - what kind of sample was Watanabe looking at ?)
 * (This statement needs attribution - again, depends on the strength of the study sample. My TCKs are very outgoing and independent, probably for similar reasons :-)  Avoid overgeneralizing, specify who says this, based on what sample.) Because military brats are constantly making new friends to replace the ones that they have lost,[53] military brats are more outgoing and independent.[54] (Eighty percent according to whom and what kind of study?  This quote is from TCKs, so I wouldn't be surprised if it really applied to all TCKs.) Eighty percent of brats claim that they can relate to anyone, regardless of differences such as race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.[55]

OK, that's as far as I got, but that gives you an idea of the kind of wording I'd like to see tightened up with respect to strength and validity of study results, attribution of generalizing statements, and examination of study populations. Take care that X study showing Y conclusion doesn't equate to a fact, since studies have limitations - wording has to account for that. (For example, you handled this well in the abuse and alcoholism section, by presenting conflicting studies.) Amazing progress so far - I think you're just about there !!! Sandy (Talk) 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, you are awesome... I changed many of the pictures, but couldn't get all to work. The Lamberg article was not one that I accessed via the internet, it is one that I have originals from the library.  The name, I too would like something better than the US Subculture, but I don't know what that might be.  I prefer "most children" over "other teenagers."  Too me, other children sounds more absolute because it is saying "all others" while most implies that it isn't just brats.  Your children may not be brats, but they have experienced more than most other teenagers.  The "studies" on behavior of brats are numerous and repeated.  It is a consistent theme in much of the brat research.  As for the Ender research, it was a study of over 500 brats who filled out a questionaire and then conducted interviews with Ender.  The problem with the study is that he obtained his sample via Brat Organizations and the Internet, thus may have selection bias in identifying more educated brats.Balloonman 10:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Made most of the changes indicated above, except for where I explained why I didn't here.

Yannismarou
Very very interesting article of unique quality! This is my review:
 * The lead: IMO, this stubby second paragraph is not nice. I would suggest you expand it a bit or you merge it with the next paragraph, so that you have two nice paragraphs. Prose stuff: In the last two short paragraphs of the lead, I counted 7 times the word "brat".
 * "these analysis have been criticized because they over-emphasized negative attributes of growing up in a military family". You mean these analyses have been criticized?
 * "Even research that is conducted using scientific sampling methods may contain bias because of the difficulty in conducting epidemiological studies across broad-based population samples. Since the Department of Defense does not track or monitor former brats, any study on adult brats is based upon self identification. Some researchers, such as Wertsch and Ender, discribed how they used referrals, internet, and newspaper articles to identify military brats." Uncited paragraph.
 * "Military culture has its own norms and expectations that often appears foreign to cilivians." That oftern appear maybe?
 * Paragraphs like this one "The children of officers socialize with other officers' children. The children of enlisted personnel socialize with those of other enlisted personnel's children. Even if an officer brat and an enlisted brat became friends at school, this friendship rarely carries over to the home life. The physical separation and differences between available activities make it very difficult." looks also to me as a bit choppy. The prose might need a slight overall polishing.
 * "While generally true, like all truisms the generalization has or has had limits." Huh?! This is redundant verbalism for me. I don't think we need this sentence in an encyclopedic article.
 * "While generally true, like all truisms ... and base exchange." Another uncited paragraph.
 * Section "Racism" that in all the last decades there were no racist incidents deserving mentioning in the article. The Presidents imposed the right legislation and the problem was fixed! No crises! No tensions! Isn't that a bit idealistic?--Yannismarou 10:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yuck... I didn't see that paragraph with the "truisms" snuck in there. The person who added it, did some other good edits when adding it that I didn't notice it. Thanks for catching it.  I'll look over it in closer detail and either find citations for it or get rid of it.  I don't want to discard another persons contributions to the article, but it does need to be cited---and I do not like the way it it written.  As for your other comments, thanks I'll definately incorporate them.Balloonman 20:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, is unique quality a good thing or a bad thing ;-) Balloonman 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good! Why bad?--Yannismarou 14:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It was half in jest... "That is a unique choice in color" could be an insult.... but I figured based on your comment that it was good ;-)66.7.182.35 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah! You know I am not a native English speaker, and even if I wanted to insult, I could not have been that good!--Yannismarou 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't know that you aren't a native English Speaker... your English is much better than my German. I wouldn't even try to edit something in German---I'd have to use a dictionary just to understand it all.  But yeah, saying something is "unique" can sometimes be a veiled insult in English.  EG you say it's unique because nobody else in the world would like it.  I knew that's not what you were saying ;-) Balloonman 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)