Talk:Brehon B. Somervell/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Lead, P2 and P3: Even though those of us with a military history bent will know what the American Expeditionary Force is (P2) and which war (P3, S1), it is helpful to keep in mind general readers that might not know that both are referring to World War I.
Done.

~~Lead, P1: The lead should be a summary of what appears in the article, but, for example, the quote from The Washington Post seems not to appear anywhere in the article except the lead.~~
Done. Repeated down at the bottom.

World War I, P2, S10 (I think) and P3, S1: What are the G-3 and G-4 referring to? Pay grades? Also, here they are set off by commas, but in WWI, P3, S1, G-4 is in parentheses. The article needs to be internally consistent.
Done. Unfortunately, the article on staff ranks is yet to be written. The best I can do is an an explanatory note.
Much better. Very nice explanation. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Between the wars" heading seems like it should be moved one paragraph earlier in the article, before the paragraph beginning The 89th Division returned to the United States…. Also, in that same paragraph, the discussion of his first wife's death and Somervell's second marriage in the 1940s seem more appropriate for the WWII section (absent a "Personal life" section for all marriages/children, etc.)
Done.

Between the wars, current P1, S3: Was this a second stint studying the Rhine?
Done. Yes.

~~WWII, P1: The mention of 485,000 people employed is repeated in the paragraph.~~
Done. Removed.

~~WWII, P1, current S5: "blew out" seems a bit unencyclopedic. Maybe phrases like "over budget"or "cost overrun" might have a better tone. Same goes for "blown out" in the last sentence of WWII, P2~~
Done.

WWII, P2, S3, use of staff: Were Bergstrom and Casey partners before this? If not, should that be staffs"?
Done.

WWII, P5, S1 & S2: These sentences both have weasel-worded phrases marked with {{who}}. Who it was that held these opinions needs to be mentioned, or the phrases need to be much more closely attributed: Author John Doe in his book, General Somervell: A Big Jerk, reports that Somervell's critics accused the general of being "stubborn and arrogant".

Done.
Very nicely done. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Later life, P1: This single paragraph seems like it should be split before the sentence beginning He suffered a heart attack…~~
Done.

~~Later life, current P1, S6: Was it a second heart attack that killed him in February 1955?~~
Done. Yes.

Infobox and categories indicate Somervell won two Legions of Merit, but the article does not mention them. Assuming this is accurate, if there are no details worthy of mention in the article, then the notation of the awards in the infobox should be cited at the very least.
Done. Unlike the Australians, there are no databases of lesser US awards, so I have no way to look them up. Added a reference. (When I'm in the US, I do some lookups, but I only have primary documents for a few officers. Since I have no access to the primary documents, I never take the American bios beyond GA status.)

Infobox and the last image caption indicate that Somervell received three DSMs, but only one (from WWI) is mentioned in the text. Are there any details available that tell when and why he received the second medal or the circumstances behind the third one? As with the Legion of Merit, if there are no details available or worth mentioning, then the caption should have a citation since it's material not covered on the text.
Done. Added the second DSM (for work with the construction division.)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There are several phrases that really need better in-text attribution, similar to the weasel-worded phrases mentioned above.
~~Between the wars, P1, S2: …marking him out as one of the Army's best and most promising officers.~~

Done.

~~WWII, P3, S4: the weasel-ish phrase …a rising tide of opinion that they were unattainable…~~

Done.

~~WWII, P4, S5: …based on his ability to get things done…~~

Done. Removed this phrase.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
WWII, P6, S1 & S2: These two sentences are inflated with peacock words: "towered over his faults", "spared no effort". These pretty clearly represent someone's opinion and need to be more closely attributed, or significantly reworded. Other peacock phrases or words that need to be addressed include:
~~Between the wars, P1, S2: …his outstanding war record…~~
Done. Deleted word.

~~Between the wars, P2, S8: …the natural choice to head…~~

Done. Re-phrased.

Other POV issues:
Between the wars, P2, S8: The assumption is that Somervell was right and the project was stopped only because "opponents of the canal protested"

Not done. Well yes, but I don't see how a reasonable reader would have reached the conclusion that Somervell was necessarily right. I presented their reasons for opposing the project.

~~Between the wars, P3, S3: Perhaps He interfaced with local politicians… would be more neutral than the current He coped with the local politicians…~~

Done. Changed to "worked".

~~WWII, P3: This reads like Somervell was wronged by Reybold's promotion since he (Somervell) was "passed over", and, "worse", his position was eliminated. Compare to this more neutral version:~~

Somervell had hoped to become Chief of Engineers but the position went instead to Brigadier General Eugene Reybold. At the same time, the transfer of the Construction Division to the Corps of Engineers eliminated Somervell's position, so he was transferred to Reybold's former post on the War Department General Staff and received a promotion to the temporary rank of major general on 28 January 1942…

Done.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
on hold for seven days — Bellhalla (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good, so I'm passing. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]