Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smedley Butler/archive2

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 not promoted by Karanacs 13:24, 6 April 2010 [1].

Smedley Butler

[edit]

Smedley Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria for a featured article. It recently passed an A class review under the milhist project and since then I have added a lot of content so that it would meet the criteria. Kumioko (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. One dab link, to Charles Francis Adams. No dead external links. Alt text good.
  • And a question: what have you done to address the issues raised in the previous FAC? Ucucha 04:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the fast review. I see that link keeps coming up but I can't figure that one out. There is only one place in the article for that link and it is correctly linked directly to the article. Please let me know if you see whats causing it. In regards to the previous submission I have greatly expanded several sections including his time in Philly, the business plot and his death among others. I have cleared up the references I think, I have reviewed the article and reworded many of the wandering butlers that were mentioned and fixed many places were grammer and prose were an issue. Aside from that if you see anythhing that needs attention, please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe there is a problem with the portion of the lead that discusses the Business Plot which says: "Those he said were involved denied it, and the media ridiculed the allegations.", but does not balance that statement by mentioning the fact that the house committee found the accusations credible or that most historians believe that while a coup was not imminent, there was a "wild scheme" under discussion. This makes the impression left by the summary in the lead significantly different from the impression given by the body of the article or the article on the plot itself. This is important because many people who do a quick look-up on a topic, especially if they do it from a mobile device such as a Kindle or an iPhone, are more likely to read the lead than the body of the article. Right now the way the lead is worded it would give me the impression that it was likely that Butler had fabricated the plot accusation, which I don't think is the view of most historians. It is a very good article on a fascinating topic and I will probably have more comments as I work through it, but this one jumped out at me as soon as I read the lead. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ill fix that tonight once I get home. --Kumioko (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done I completely reworded the last paragraph. I also didn't like how the lead transitioned from the business plot to his death so I streamlined that a bit. Please let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but remember you asked for it :)
  • Comment I think the lead should also mention how many countries he served in during his 34 year career. Something like "During his 34 year career as a marine that included combat in the Phillippenes, China, and the banana wars in Central America and the Carribean as well as service in France during the first world war, Butler was awarded 16 medals, five of which were for heroism."
Done another one down, Ill start working on the Vera Cruz section next. --Kumioko (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the "Central America" subsection of banana wars you should mention that Coyotepec is in Mexico. If it refers to another Coyotepec then the link is wrong.
Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the "Veracruz, Mexico, and his first Medal of Honor" subsection there is a jarring jump from Veracruz to Haiti with no explanation. I assume that what happened was that a detachment from the garrison at Veracruz was dispatched to deal with the crisis in Haiti but I think you need a few words to make that clear. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Took a while but I think I have expanded this section enough know. If not please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'l work on that. --Kumioko (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I will certainly expand on that. It may take me a day or too to scrounge up the refs but I should be able to get this done in the next day or two. --Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NP, Semper Fi!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great Job, Marine!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Kumioko (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the material you added on the Bonus Army is very good. I believe all the significant problems have been fixed, and I think the article is now quite comprehensive. It is also fascinating (touching as it does on some far too little known aspects of American history), informative, and quite readable. Therefore I am happy to support it for FA and to congratulate you and the other editors involved for the good work. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I've had a look at this article and have a number of comments. Apologies for the long list.
    • in the Early life section, paragraph two seems a little ambiguous about whether it is referring to Smedley Butler or his father;
    • in the Military career section, the first paragraph does uses a lot of the word "he", could this be substituted;
    • in the Military career section, "first lieutenant" could be wikilinked;
    • in the Philippine-American war section there is some inconsistency in how you deal with numbers. You have "1 dead and 60 wounded", then "ten from combat and fifty from...". I believe that the WP:MOS usually prefers numbers greater than 10 to use numbers and those less than 10 to be depicted with words "e.g. one killed and 14 wounded";
    • the Philippine-American war section heading should probably be capitalised as "Philippine-American War" as that is a proper noun (war being part of the name of the conflict);
    • in the Boxer Rebellion section, "Commanding Officer" should not be capitalised as it is not a proper noun in this case;
    • in the Veracruz section, there is inconsistency in treating numbers greater than 10 (e.g. "seventeen dead and sixty-three wounded);
    • the final paragraph of the Veracruz section needs to be reworked as it is a bit akward and repeats the clause about it being his first Medal of Honor;
    • in the Haiti section, USS Connecticut should be linked on first mention (i.e. in the second sentence);
    • in the Haiti section "3 companies of Marines" should be "three companies...";
    • in the Haiti section there is inconsistency in capitalisation of Marines (as in John is a Marine, rather than John served in the Marines). You have mostly used Marines in this instance, but there is also "marines". I am not sure which is correct, though, but I'd have thought that it should be lower case as soldiers or troopers etc are not capitalised (if so, you would need to change this throughout the article);
Comment - Marine is a title, it is always capitalized.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • when refering to the Medal of Honor, sometimes you use the "Medal", again I'm not sure about this capitalisation as I believe that in that case it is being used as an improper noun and therefore shouldn't be capitalised. For instance one wouldn't say the "Cross" to refer to the "Victoria Cross", one would say "medal";
    • in the World War I section, relating to Rinehart, you have "She later described how he tackled..." This is a little ambiguous, did she describe how Butler tackled the sanitation issue or Baker? This can be fixed by substituting "he" with "Butler";
    • in the China and stateside service section the link to "Civil War" should be changed to "American Civil War" as it is currently linked to the generic term rather than the specific;
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Director of Public Safety section, this sentence needs to be reworked: "Philadelphia's municipal government was notoriously corrupt and Butler refused at first, but when Kendrick asked President Calvin Coolidge to intervene, and Coolidge contacted him authorizing him to take the necessary leave from the Corps." The issue is that it is not complete due to the word "when", which implies something else will be said (i.e. that he accepted), but that is not said until the next sentence;
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence is not grammatically correct "...don't believe there is a single bandit notch on a policeman's guns" (the issue being the word "guns"). This is a quote, however, so if it is an error that Butler made with his syntax it can be fixed by changing it to this "guns [sic]";
    • in the Military retirement section, "Major General" as in "senior Major General in the corps" is incorrectly capitalised, as is "corps". In this case it should be "senior major general in the Corps";
    • in the Military retirement section you have used the contraction "didn't", this should be changed to "did not";
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that "senate" should be capitalised in the Military retirement section;
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in Speaking and writing career section, I believe that "corps" should be capitalised;
Somebody fixed it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in Speaking and writing career section, remove the wikilink to World War I as it has already previously been linked and would as such be overlinking the term;
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the same section "twenty years" should be "20 years" and the emdash before "17,000 should be unspaced;
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the same section you have "World War 1" (1 being the issue) [in the sentence about the Bonus Army], but elsewhere have "World War I";
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Speaking and writing career section, you have used the word "rite", I think however that this should be "right";
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the same section should congress be capitalised and "bonus army" also (you have capitalised it sometimes, but not others, e.g in the sentence "...Douglas MacArthur dispersed the bonus army";
I have capitalized every occurance to match the usage in the Bonus Army article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • the first sentence of the Death section could be reworded to be a bit stronger. Perhaps the date should come first?
    • a query: with the ribbons, you have depicted two MOH ribbons. Is this correct, or would it be a single ribbon with a star? I don't know myself, just thinking out loud (the MOH article states "indicate multiple presentations of the Medal of Honor, the U.S. Army and Air Force bestow oak leaf clusters, while the Navy Medal of Honor is worn with gold award stars);
      • Well, there are 2 reasons for this really. The first is that regardless of what the Medal of Honor article may state, there are no devices authorized for the Medal of Honor and based on that when he wore his ribbons he wore them seperately. If you look at the image in the infobox you can kinda see it. --Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Published works section, the titles should be capitalised per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital_letters)#Composition titles;
    • the page ranges in the citations should have endashes;
    • the Further reading section is a different size to the References section, I suggest adding the refbegin, refend tags to it also. Also I suggest removing the spacing between the works listed in the References section, as it has an unnecessarily different spacing format to the Further reading section;
    • could the Marine Corps navbox be collapsed as its quite large?
    • the Burk work is cited (Citation # 53), however, it is listed in Further reading, I suggest moving it to the References section;
    • Littleton Waller is linked in both the Phillipine-American war section and the Boxer Rebellion section. This is overlink, so I suggest removing the link from the Boxer Rebellion section.

Once again, sorry for the large number of comments. Overall the article looks quite good. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Find a Grave is not a reliable source, it's user submitted information, just like a wiki.
    • In this case I don't agree its not reliable. Yes its user submitted but its use is well established in WB and is on literally thousands of articles. If this has been determined to be an unsuitable reference then it shouldn't be allowed to be used. Additionally, I have edited on WP for several years and have worked on many articles in FA, GA, A, Peer review etc and this is the first time I have ever heard it suggested that this is not relieble so for know I am going to leave this one. --Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't matter about what other articles do, you aren't contesting that it's user submitted, and thus not reliable. It should not be used, period, but at the moment, we can only address THIS article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done I replaced it with a source from the cemetery, itself. Maybe Find-a-grave could go to the external links section? That's what I did on John C. Cremony.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, good find. I still think this is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed but I'll present that argument at the appropriate forum and return to the task at hand. I marked it as done, hope you don't mind. --Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have to understand that sources are scrutinized closely at FAC even more than they are in GA reviews, and as for most articles, their sources aren't usually scrutinized at all unless somebody challenges the content. I wouldn't consider find a grave a reliable source (certainly not for an FA class article) but I think that it is fine as an external link. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • Current ref 66 (Smedley D. Butler Brigade...) lacks a publisher.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely satisfied with the prose. Here are issues just at the top.

  • "During his 34 year career as a Marine he participated in military actions all over the world including the Philippines, China, and the Banana Wars in Central America and the Caribbean." Longish sentence, so perhaps a comma after "Marine" or "world"? Hyphen for 34-year ...
  • Should there be a "both" before "Marine Corp Brevet Medal"? I think so ... and you could avoid repeating both Honor names ... "awarded the Medal and the Honor for ...". Still not entirely sure what you mean, actually. The other two were awarded both for a single action?
  • I think "veterans" and "pacifists" are on the boundary of not being desirable as links. Ration them and the readers are more likely to click on the really important ones such as "Business Plot", which comes up next. Readers rarely click on links as it is. I think we also know what a "military coup" is ... does that article add anything sufficiently focused on this article?
    • I would agree with you, and I have delinked these (and several other rather common terms as well) several times in the past but within a couple days someone will relink them so I stopped doing it. --Kumioko (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "probably" is odd to me, when it's couched in such determined wording. I think just remove the word: "they determined that there was sufficient evidence to prove that such a plot probably existed".
    • I don't agree on this one, the report states they they believed that it was probable, by removing this it makes it appear as though they were positive and prove conclusively of the plots existence. --Kumioko (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Butler continued his speeches"—what, he ignored the time's-up bell? Better a wording that clarifies you're referring to his speaking engagements or tours. Unclear relationship to the rest of that sentence.
  • Remove "in a family"?
  • Commas: "His father was a lawyer, judge, and for 31 years a Congressman, who chaired the House Naval Affairs Committee during the Harding and Coolidge administrations."
  • "Against his father Thomas's wishes"—> "... the wishes of ...".
  • Please note the en dashes I've put in. WP:MOSDASH also says not to write "From 1927–1929".
  • Some of the images are tiny for the amount of detail: "Capture", for example. Can you boost the size of some of them? I'd go for 250px for that one, to start with. Tony (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 7 images, all free-use from commons (PD-GOV or PD-OLD) plus some ribbons that don't need to be checked. --PresN 22:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. It's informative, but the prose is currently far below FA standard. I found problems everywhere I looked. It needs a lot of work. Examples, mostly just from three paragraphs:
  • "and was an outspoken critic of U.S. military adventurism" Where is this written about in the body? I see criticisms of war profiteering, but that's not the same thing.
  • This particular comment doesn't seem valid to me. There is a reference to military adventurism in the text (perhaps it was added after the comment ws made) and in anycase the extended quote from War is a Racket clearly made the point. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the urging of his father, the newly elected mayor of Philadelphia, W. Freeland Kendrick, asked him to leave the Marines to become the official in charge of running the police and fire departments, the Director of Public Safety." This sentence begins a heading, but is indicative of an article-wide problem of nebulous "his" and "him" statements. Whose father? If someone started reading here, they'd be stymied. Also, consider "his father, the newly elected mayor"; but we have to read on to discover it's someone else. "Director of Public Safety" is awkwardly tacked on at the end.
  • "but Kendrick asked President Calvin Coolidge to intervene, and Coolidge contacted him" The problem appears again in the next sentence. "Him" in this context would be Kendrick... but it's not Kendrick.
  • "tell them how things would be" Too colloquial for our voice.
  • "in some cases switched entire units from one area to another" Nebulous. Physical area? Organizational area? Be more precise in your writing. Police don't serve "areas", they serve precincts, etc.
  • It could be physical area or organizational and a precinct by definition is an area. Since the references don't mention precincts, I cannot assume that the city was broken up into precincts, they may have done things differently there back then and its also very possible that he did away with the precincts as part of his restructuring, just a guess on that one I really don't know. Either way I don't agree with this change. --Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Butler ordered raids ... ordering them padlocked"
  • "In addition to the speakeasies he ordered the raids on brothels, bootleggers, prostitutes, gamblers and corrupt police officers." What is "the" doing? How do you raid a person?
  • "Being more zealous than political he ordered crack downs" What does this mean? The two certainly aren't mutually exclusive or even opposites. Also, "crackdown" is a noun and "crack down" is a verb. The rest of this sentence is confusing... what are drinking "dives"? Much too colloquial. Then, you mention that the Ritz-Carlton and the Union League weren't spared, but they're certainly not dives?
  • MoS: The "[sic]" is supposed to be spaced, I believe.
  • "Although many of the local citizens and police felt that the raids were just a show, they continued" As written, it's the citizens who continued, not the raids.
  • "In his next move Butler started new programs, changed policies and changed the police uniforms." More imprecise writing. What do you mean by "his next move"? All of this is one "move"?
  • "These changes included military style checkpoints into the city, bandit chasing squads armed with sawed off shotguns and armored cars and changing the uniforms so they were similar in appearance to the Marine Corps." A complete wreck. Grammar... too much to list.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - structure of history section seems to get off to a strange start with the hybrid Early life and family section. Why combine "family" here, in what is ostensibly a "background" section? It causes the history to jump from 1905 back to 1898 as we enter the next section—and, meanwhile, we have been confronted with the idea of "his former commanding officer in China". PL290 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree with you here. There is no "history" section. There are separate sections on his family life and on his military career, which are on the same level, as are the sections on his time as Public Safety Director, and his post military career. I understand your desire to keep everything chronological but sticking the discussion of his marriage in the middle of the section on the banana wars, which if I understand you correctly is what you would be advocating, would strike me as strange. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This raises concerns regarding criterion 2b (appropriate structure). A biography is a life history, and biographical articles are therefore typically structured chronologically, with any topical sections separated from the history section. I suggest the first four sections of this article do in fact constitute an implicit History section, being distinct in character from the remaining sections, which are topical: 
(History)
   Early life and family
   Military career
   Director of Public Safety
   Military retirement and later years
Honors and awards
Published works
See also
Notes
Footnotes
References
Further reading

I am unconvinced that deviating from this general pattern produces an intelligible biographical article. PL290 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that Smedley has been dead for a number of years now so the entire article is "History" If this article were shorter and the individual did less I would probably agree with you that the family short be in chronological order. However, this individual did a multitude of things throughout his life making the "story" of telling his life complicated. With this complication in mind I believe it is more beneficial to the reader to leave it were it is. If I move it into chornological order his marriage info would essentially be buried in his military career making it difficult to locate. The whole chronology thing is really a "recommended guideline" anyway and not a hard and fast rule inflexible to change. Or one could invoke WP:IAR or state Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. In any rate I believe in the end it is more benficial to the reader to leave it as it is, in this case at least.--Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this and I decided that contrary to my first comment PL290 has a point. Having the marriage and children stuff out of order in the midst of so much material that is in chronological order is a little jarring. Therefore I have been bold and taken a shot at a minor reorganization. I think the result works a little better than the previous organization and makes better sense of what was happening in his life between his adventures in Honduras in 1903 and the interventions in Nicaragua, and Panama in 1909. If you don't like what I did feel free to revert or modify it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind at all and I still don't agree with it. In fact it now looks as though his marriage and time as a coal member are somehow a "part" of his military career instead of things that occurred "during" his military career. In the spirit of getting this article approved finally I recommend if we are going to structure it this way then we change the military career section above the marriage to something like Military career from 1898 - 1905 and then after the marriage do something similar. This way the marriage won't be embedded int he military career. --Kumioko (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After looking again I do think the new order is better. If you had a whole bunch of material on his life outside the Corps it would make sense to have a separate "biography" or "personal life" section separate from the military career section (as you did with the Director of Public Safety material), but since you have only a few sentences on his mariage and brief stint as a miner, it makes more sense to insert them inline in the chronological narrative. Changing the heading name was fine. You could also consider a title such as "Life as a Marine" or "Time in the Corps" that would make it clear that you were talking about his life while he was in the Marines not just his military career without being quite as cluttered as the section heading you have now. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to support (prose) - Further to my comment on structure above, I've now been right through the article, and copyedited a few things that jumped out along the way. The relocation of the marriage passage is, I think, effective, and I see no other structural problems (and agree with Rusty Cashman that the resulting section titles can perhaps be simplified without fear of implying a section is exclusively concerned with military service). I found several minor loose ends (missing words and the like) which I tidied up as I went. There are one or two passages where the prose seems a little casual or informal, such as "Not all of the city felt he was doing a bad job though and when the news started to break that he would be leaving ...". A few specific points (some of which are very minor ones that I couldn't fix as I went):

  • The Fighting Quaker - a telling nickname, given that Quaker beliefs and practices have long identified peace as a fundamental principle. Is nothing known about Butler's own religious beliefs? He is termed a Quaker by this nickname, but the word only appears once in the article, where we learn only that his parents were both members of local Quaker families. Was he even a Quaker himself?
  • For his actions on April 22, Butler was awarded his first Medal of Honor. - paragraph then ends. Yet April 22 is never mentioned before or since, nor are Butler's actions that day identified. I realize the subsequent paragraph implicitly has a bearing, but surely something specific must have taken place on April 22; is there nothing more that can be said about that in this paragraph?
  • The FBI, then known as the United States Bureau of Investigation, checked its fingerprint records to obtain the police records of individuals who had been arrested during the riots or who had participated in the bonus march. (my bold) - 43,000 people participated in the bonus march; were they really all fingerprinted?
  • He implemented sweeping programs to clean up city safety and security. - "clean up" seems odd here.
  • sawed off shotguns (as, I learn to my amazement, they are called in the US!) should be hyphenated (and probably wikified too).
  • His second year as Director of Public Safety started less dramatically than the first. - hardly surprising, since it was a continuation and not a new start: perhaps better left unsaid.
  • A link audit may be in order: "captain" is linked, but not the less common "prohibition" (of alcohol).
    • As I answer this I keep finding myself rewording it because I sound irritated but Im not so here goes. I have linked unlinked and relinked and unrelinked a number of things in this article over the last few months. One editer will link and another will unlink it and this is one of those examples. I will relink it though but I expect it will be unlinked within a few days as being a "common term". --Kumioko (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • During his Senate campaign, one of the issues that Butler spoke about strongly was the veterans bonus. - should this perhaps be either "veteran's bonus" or "veterans' bonus"? I could not ascertain this from the linked Bonus Army article so perhaps you could check. (The WWI "soldier's bonus" is mentioned lower down.)
  • on the corner of 8th and I Streets - we don't have these streetnames in the UK, so I'm unfamiliar, but just to check, is that really meant to be just the letter I?
  • In December 1909, he commanded the 3d Battalion - is 3d correct, or should it be "3rd"?
  • To pass the time, Butler had a very large Eagle, Globe, and Anchor tattoo that started at his throat and extended to his waist. He also met another Marine with whom he subsequently maintained a life long friendship, Littleton Waller. - it's unclear how simply having a tattoo would pass the time; is something missing? Also, "He also met another Marine" seems a choppy follow-on from the tattoo (and is anyway slightly oddly worded: he had been with the Marines for some time).

PL290 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards supporting What is the current status? Has Andy been asked to comment on the changes. Have Tony's comments been fully addressed, including those regarding the images? I don't think the structure of the article is a problem, but there are still one or two long sentences that lack flow. Graham Colm (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of Tony's comments have been addressed but I have left several messages on his talk page and he hasn't replied so silence I consent I guess. I also believe that Andy's comments have been addressed but if he feels they have not I would be glad to address them. You mention a couple long sentences! Could you point me at those please and I will try and reword them. --Kumioko (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments What is the status here. I had promised Kumioko that I would give the article a ce, and I've done that. The longest sentences are more manageable, and the verb on verb on verbs are fixed. There are still some areas that I just didn't know what to do with, particularly in the last part of the Dickson committee section. Kumioko, if you look at it in edit mode, you can see where someone has left you some notes. I think it reads better now, although it's still choppy. In terms of content, I think this is a very good article. I'd have appreciated some more context at places, but I'm not as familiar with early 20th century American history as I might be. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh, and I fixed the link on Charles Francis Adams III (that is why the dab kept showing up). Anyway, it's fixed now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats great thanks for the help. To answer your other question I think all of the comments have been addressed. I have requested Tony come back and review his comments several times but he hasn't responded so I am assuming all is ok. You said there were a couple areas that needed expansion? Could I ask what they were? --Kumioko (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kumioko, the prose is still weak, but it is better. The area that needed explanation was under the Business plot, open it in the edit mode and you'll see a comment that someone inserted. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What I consider a severe problem with the lead has re-appeared. It is a conflict between what the lead currently says about the business plot and what the body of the text does, and I consider it very misleading. The lead says:"The committee determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove such a plot existed". The body of the article says "confirmed some of Butler's accusations in its final report" and includes a quote from the committe "...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient." There is a clear contradiction here. There is also no mention in the lead that while most historians believet that there was no coup imminent there were almost certainly wild schemes under discussion. The way the lead reads now it sounds like Butler likely fabricated the incident where as I pointed this problem out earlier in this review it was fixed (although not as strongly as I would have liked) but at some point that fix disappeared. When I tried to fix it again just now, my changes were reverted. If this contradiction is not resolved I will have to switch my earlier support to an oppose. The lead of an article should summerize the body of the article not contradict it! Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your comment that it makes it appear like he made it up adn should be changed. I wil try and fix that. I also apologize for the revert, I think we were both in the process of making changes and I made my changes after your, or at the same moment perhaps, but it was unintentional and the point you make was there before my edit. I have noticed a disturbing trend with this article though and that is the longer it is open, one editor changes something so it meets their approval and that overrides anothers. To be honest I am beginning to see why so few editors participate in FA's.--Kumioko (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, this seems to be just the sort of edit conflict that happens when someone makes a copy of text, edits it offline and then replaces the original text without checking first to make sure no one else has made changes. I have done it myself in the past. I have restored my changes. Feel free to edit them as seems appropriate. Sorry for the strongly worded comment, but I was a little frustrated because I couldn't tell whether you had wiped my changes out accidentally or reverted them because you didn't like them. I didn't want to just restore them and risk an edit war. I do like the rest of the changes you made to the lead. I think it reads well now. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Do you have a hard copy of "above and beyond"? Amazon lists the authors as "Congressional Medal of Honor Society". Even in Google scholar, everyone else punts on the question...
      Not sure what you mean here? Can you clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Please verify the author(s) of "Editors of the Boston Publishing Company (1985). Above and Beyond, A History of the Medal of Honor from the Civil War to Vietnam". • Ling.Nut 04:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • hey, Lelle appears only once in the notes, and is fully specified both in the notes and the refs. Klehr also appears only once, and is in the notes but not the refs. Which approach are you employing? I've seen folks do it both ways in different articles, but you can't do it both ways in the same one.
    • Is the FBI website public domain? You copy/pasted overly-long passages from it.
      Yes but tell me where this is. I don't like using cut and paste even from Public domain sites and I would like toi clean that up. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It's in note 44, but here it is again.• Ling.Nut 04:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please help me find where Schmidt (1995) mentions Roosevelt on p. 85 (note 24b). I do not see it on that page or any page, although it does record other comments by Roosevelt. • Ling.Nut 04:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a quick search, I was unable to locate a reliable sourcing noting Butler as a winner of the Sampson Medal (West Indies campaign). Apparently, neither were you...
      I had it somewhere and thought it was in there, good catch. Let me see if I can find that again and if not I will remove it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have the NYT article, "Gen. Butler Bares a 'Fascist Plot'". It specifically mentions the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the first para. How then can the McCormack Dickstein cmte. be a precursor to the former (see note 51)? • Ling.Nut 04:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Certainly per WP:LEDE and potentially per... there isn't anything in WIAFA about "not well organized for clarity; not underlining points strongly or clearly enough." I suppose it's a hybrid of 1a and 1b. So here's my point: his father had more than a little political pull, he was passed over for Commandant of the Marine Corps; he ran unsuccessfully for Senate (and felt he was abandoned by Pinchot), he leaned leftist in his later years (despite being a Republican), he played a prominent role in the Bonus march, he gave his money from his speeches to unemployement relief, etc etc etc. All or at least most of these things are actually in the article, but the article isn't well-organized or well-structured enough to give the reader skimming/scanning a heads-up about all this political stuff. The WP:LEDE certainly needs work along these lines. The entire article itself... could use a bit of reorganization. I'm partially thinking of painfully clear topic sentences, which (in the case of an encyclopedia article) should be the first sentence in the para, and should summarize the... you know.. main point. I'm also thinking.. forex, his father's influence is not mentioned until far down in the article. It does list his various political offices in a far earlier section, but no mention of how he used his pull in his son's favor (mmm, the book "Maverick marine" at least seems to suggest that at least some of Butler's initial rise was due to his father working in the background to support him) Etc. I don't believe these brief remarks fully cover what I feel is missing from the article; you'll have to think for yourself about the best approach. However, although almost all of the facts are here, the reader has to read the whole darn article very carefully and read between the lines to connect the dots before he/she can put together the political aspects of Butler's career. I don't think these things can be straightened out in time for the nom to succeed. • Ling.Nut 05:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well in some of this all I can say is your right but the fact is entire books have been written about him and it would be impossible to capture all of these details without making the article hitting critical mass. The same goes for the lede, its very long now (longer than I would like it to be in fact) and it will be hard to cover all of these details without adding extra length or chopping something else. He simply did too much in his life, but Ill try. --Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After I reviewed this a little closer I wanted to add a little follow up. I think the article flows quite nicely so I don't understand what you mean by this article isn't well organized and is unclear. But if you have some suggestions for clarity please let me know what they are. In regards to the political ramifications of how his father helped his career, Im sure he did honestly but when I read back through the references its mostly speculation and probibilities. Except in one specific case when he asked the president to ask him to be director of public safety, which is mentioned in the article. --Kumioko (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your patience. When I was talking about organization, I wasn't talking about how the article flows per se. I was talking about whether the info is presented in highly accessible fashion. I think many readers of Wikipedia skim for information. Therefore, I think all articles should be as skim-friendly as possible. Think "summarize key points". In the beginning he was a soldier; in the end he was a political ranter with a decidedly leftist lean. OK, you kinda got that covered in information scattered throughout the article. You did a good job in that respect. But the points are never really driven home; you didn't say (or I didn't see) generalizations along the lines of "he supported many leftist causes despite being a Republican" etc. You need these not only in the WP:LEDE but in the topic sentences of various paragraphs, especially at the beginning of each new section. The problem is, you can't just throw some quickie summary in there. You have to think carefully about what you write, staying within the bounds permitted by the text of your reliable sources. You also have to make it read well... so it takes a little time or skill or both... I'm especially talking about hist leftward leanings here, but perhaps other points as well. I think it's quite possible to read the lede and the article and not come away knowing just how left-of-center some of his ideas were...• Ling.Nut 13:42, 4 April 2010 (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/Smedley_Butler/archive2&oldid=1138471664"