Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SPARS/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 November 2024 [1].

SPARS

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pendright (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Coast Gurad Women's Reserve–SPARs–is about the women who served in the U.S. military during World War II. SPARs was created by the U.S Congress, and it authorized the USCG to replace male officers and enlisted men with women at shore stations. Working with the top-secret LORAN project was its most unique assignment. LORAN was a land-based radio navigation system developed to monitor locations of ships at sea and aircraft in flight. Monitoring stations were able to calculate a ship's exact location by measuring the amount of time each signal took to reach a ship. Chatham, Massachusetts, was staffed by SPARs and was believed to be the only all-female staffed monitoring station of its kind in the world. The article was promoted to A-Class in October 2024. Pendright (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unfortunately I don't think this is ready, and I think it'll take significant effort to get it there. Some specific concerns:

  • Structure. There's a bunch of content about Stratton that doesn't really need to be here, there's a Notable People section that's a set of in-text citations, and there's a "Women of the SPARs" section that is... I'm not really sure what it's meant to contain?
"To oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." Pendright (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the paraphrasing seems to be too close to the original sources. Compare for example "Within weeks of her arrival, however, she received a telegram from the Bureau of Naval Personnel to report posthaste to Washington D.C. Once there, Stratton was ushered to the Coast Guard headquarters. She was informed about legislation pending in the U.S. Congress to form a USCG Women's Reserve, and further informed that she had been recommended to become its first director." with "I had only been there for a couple of weeks when I received a telegram from the Bureau of Naval Personnel telling me to report to Washington as soon as possible. Upon arrival at BuPers, I was whisked off to the Coast Guard’s headquarters ... I was told that there was legislation pending to create a women’s reserve in the Coast Guard, and I had been recommended to become the first head", or "Congress enacted legislation ending the Women's Volunteer Reserve and allowing women to be officially integrated into active duty or the reserve. Following the change, those enlisted female reservists then serving on active duty were given the choice of enlisting in the regular USCG or completing their reserve enlistments" vs "Congressional legislation ended the Women's Reserve and women were first officially integrated into the active-duty Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. Female reservists then serving on active duty were given the choice of enlisting in the regular Coast Guard or completing their reserve enlistments". (The latter is a PD source so direct copying is permissible but would need to be properly attributed).
I'll change the items mentioned for your approval. Pendright (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing. The article relies quite heavily on non-independent sources, and there appears to be independent literature available but not cited
Name the literatur and where it resides. Pendright (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing, particularly with an eye to non-specialist readers
The article was copy-edited in March 2024. Pendright (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"To oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." Pendright (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to your reply. Pendright (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm butting in here, as I don't intend to review, but I'm not sure that copy-pasting the directions for how to oppose – twice – is the best tack to take when responding to an oppose from an experienced FAC contributor. Especially when a quite specific rationale has been provided. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Nikkimaria, and the specific reasons given in her review. Close paraphrasing is a ship-sinker on its own, but there are also serious concerns throughout about MoS, relevance and structure. These can be addressed by reading the MoS carefully and ensuring that the article complies with it on all points, by ensuring that all of the material is relevant and important to a general reader of an encyclopaedic, rather than specialist, article, and by establishing a logical and coherent structure. To help with the latter, you may wish to consult other Featured Articles on military units to see how they handle the same questions.
I note from above that the article has already been copyedited, which may be so, but it is visible that it has not been copy-edited to FAC standards. That is no slight on whoever did that work -- FA writing is difficult! -- but does perhaps speak to a gap between the level of expertise required to get it through this process and the experience of those who have thus far been involved in its creation. It might be wise to seek out one of the many experienced MilHist FA writers as a mentor.
I would also note, per the part of the FA standards the nominator has (repeatedly) copy-pasted above, FA reviewers are required to provide actionable objections. They are not required to provide a step-by-step guide to meeting those objections. "The article does not a sufficient range of the sources available" is actionable: the nominator needs to go and look for those sources. It's entirely reasonable to ask for further clarification, but a reviewer is certainly not required to provide a reading list. Likewise, a reviewer is not required to point out every deficiency in MoS, spelling and grammar (and, to avoid doubt, there are several of those throughout): indeed, it is often held that to do so is actively unhelpful where serious concerns exist. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination and request that it be archived as soon as possible. Pendright (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: See the nom's withdrawal request above. - SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SPARS/archive1&oldid=1256542660"