Talk:Jay Luvaas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Some comments; see below

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Some comments; see below

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   See below

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Some comments; see below

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   See below

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No images, al;though you could use this 1954 pic under Fair Use

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Spelling and grammar

• Comma after "American Civil War" in first sentence of the lead. (Is that what it is called? Just asking.) done yes. :)
• And after "Allegheny College" done
• Use "World War I" instead of "WWI" done'
• "Staff ride" should be "staff ride" (and link first time it appears.) fixed
• "U.S." or "US"? Pick one. I only find one.../?
• "Cadets" should be "cadets" done
• Link George Francis Robert Henderson on first use. done

Layout

• We don't normally put the place of birth and death in the lead sentence (MOS:BIO)
• Can me make "Selected writing" a separate section? done
• I'm at a loss of the relevance of the entries in the "See also" section. his students, I've added them to the box.
• Consider using {{infobox academic}} instead done
• Consider moving the first paragraph of "Impact on study of military history" below the third so it discusses staff rides before noting the rides he had authored.
• Consider adding him to Category:United States Military Academy faculty and Category:United States Army War College faculty done

Referencing

• However, it would be nice if the birthplace and death place were in in the body. With a reference. (suggest source 5) done
• The infobox says he graduated from Allegheny with his BA in 1949, but the article does not provide a source for this (And shouldn't it be AB? Just asking.)
• Suggest source 5 for these additional details.
• Could you use {{doi}}. Or better still, {{cite}}? (Citation style is weird, but not required to conform to the MOS) I detest those templaits

Content

• Although the infobox mentions his wife and five kids, the article does not done
• Nor does it have his birth and death date/place, so that is unreferenced done
• The article and infobox could mention that he is interred in Evergreen Cemetery, Gettysburg, PA 'done
• The infobox could mention his receipt of the Outstanding Civilian Service Medal done
• This made me wonder what his thesis was on - we usually list them for academics. Well, his 1951 AM (not mentioned in the Infobox or the article for some reason) was on "Through English eyes; the impact of the American civil war on British military thought" [1]; his 1956 PhD was on "Through foreign eyes; the American civil war in European military thought" [2] done

Neutrality

• "who had never written or edited a bad book" does not sound very neutral.Owen Connelly is not known for his neutrality

Aaargh. Placing on hold. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've also asked his daughter for some photos, but I think she's forgotten. auntieruth (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks @Hawkeye7: for the read through. I think I've fixed the issues you raised. auntieruth (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • All points addressed. I've performed a copyedit - revert changes you don't like. Passing now. As an aside, you have caused me to reassess Jay Luvaas, whom I never rated highly before. After the Second World War there were a lot of extravagant claims in the US about how their Civil War foretold the trench warfare Great War. This created something of a target for historians in the 1950s and 1960s. (When it didn't die, they came back and had another go at it 50 tears later.) But it was studied, at least in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)