Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Smedley Butler

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article was promoted. EyeSerenetalk 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smedley Butler[edit]

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it appears to meet all the criteria, it has undergone 2 separate peer reviews and seems to contain all the elements necessary. Kumioko (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Three Disambig links are reported in the article, please locate these links and if at all possible remove them. A handful of your external links are reported as suspicious, including to links identified as being dead, please check and advise. Six images are listed as being in need of alt text, please add this forthwith.
  • Disambiguous links - Done. The links are fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text - Done. All images now have alt text. --Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links - Will work on these next. --Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a lot of cleanup of refs and dates. I think its pretty much done now. --Kumioko (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Butler married Ethel Conway Peters of Philadelphia in Bay Head, New Jersey on June 30, 1905.[10] His best man at the wedding was his former commanding officer in China, Lieutenant Colonel Littleton W. T. Waller. Butler had a daughter, Ethel Peters Butler, and two sons, Smedley Darlington Jr. and Thomas Richard.[1]" When I clicked on the one at the end of this sentence in the first section I got brought right back to the main page. This looks like an external link, and I think it may be malformed; can you check it and correct it if it is in fact out of order?
    • Otherwise it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think everything is fixed know. Please let me know if you see anything else or if I missed anything. You'll notice I also added a notes section because some of the refs were really not references but notes and I restructured and cleaned up the references section. --Kumioko (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support CommentsOppose

  • I've made a few tweaks to the alt text. Per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid, "black and white photo" and the like should not be used, so I have removed all instances of this.
  • I also made a few other tweaks in the body of the article. Please check to make sure that I haven't inadvertantly changed any meanings.
  • Done meanings still seem the same to me. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Ref #22 (Frazier, Wade. "Excerpt from" . The Business of War ) a reliable source?
  • I found a better reference and used it instead. --Kumioko (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but it is still listed as a "general reference". This is an unreliable source that should not be used at all as a reference, general or otherwise. If you really want to keep it, perhaps move it to the External links section? Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotations, "Unless there is an overriding reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." From my reading, this means that the links in the quote in the Speaking and writing career and Anti-War activity section should be removed.
  • I've added a couple of fact tags at the ends of paragraphs that need references.
  • I am really confused as to the formatting of the refs. Some references are given in full text multiple times, others have full text the first time and shortened notes after, some have full text both in-line and in the "general references" section. In the further reading section, magazines are given with no article title to refer to, books are listed with no publisher, and why are three full books on the history of the Marine Corps needed for an article on one single person. Also, books by Smedley should be in a "Bibliography" section (which should include a full list of books he authored or co-authored), rather than tucked into the Further reading section. The External links section could also use a trim, as many of the links duplicate each other or references.
  • Working Im gonna break this apart for ease of completion.
  • Done - Refs with full text multiple times. Some done, still have some too do.
  • Done - Magazine/Journal issues.
  • Done - Books with no publisher.
  • Done - 3 Marine Corps books. I reviewed these refs but and found that the different refs each show different details about different things that the others do not so I feel its necessary to retain these. Additionally I have found some new info that I will be adding to the article in the next couple days.
  • Done - I have created the bibliography and moved the 2 that he authored to it.
  • Done - I have started to tidy up the refs but I still have a bunch to do.
  • Did a couple and I will continue addressing the others. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the most part, these look good. I have a couple of further comments, but I will list those individually later.
  • Half of the World War I section is referenced to a book, General Smedley Darlington Butler, co-authored by the subject of the article and based on his own letters. This section includes phrases such as "While his superiors considered him brave and brilliant," and "The camp had been plagued by horribly unsanitary, overcrowded and disorganized conditions." (and then goes on to say how wonderfully Butler solved the problem), which should not be sourced to the subject himself.
  • I would still like to see secondary sources added to back this up, although if these aren't available then I won't make too big a fuss over it :)
  • Also, Butler's book "War is a Racket" is given as a general reference. Again, a book by the subject of the article should not be used as a "general source" in the article, as people who are writing about themselves generally put themselves in the best light possible, leading to POV, misrepresented facts, etc.
  • Comment - Oddly enough the the book was written to be mostly self deprecating and he portrays himself as a thug and gangster working for wall street and the industries of the US. Although I can see your point. I have moved it to the bibliography section and I will review the comments that link it as a ref and see if I can associate them to a different reference. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are both the original and the revised version of Maverick Marine used? Generally, only the most recent version of a source is used, as there is probably a reason it has been revised.
  • Done I removed the original and left the revised edition. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be a couple more books here that could be included in the Bibliography section. I am looking specifically at #9 and 10, although others may need to be included as well.
  • I added these 2, the others are collections of papers or letters that he wrote so they are probably of low value to the article but I can add them if you think it necessary. --Kumioko (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any more information that could be given in the reference for #19 (Butler, Common Sense, 1935)? An article title, month or day of publication date (depending on if it's a daily, weekly or monthly magazine), etc? As it is, it's somewhat confusing as to what it is if you are looking simply at the citation and don't read the paragraph preceeding the quote.
  • Done I found another reference that has the same info and used it instead. --Kumioko (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please standardize the abbreviation of United States to either "US" or "U.S." Currently, both forms of abbreviation are used multiple times in the article. A spaced "U. S.", as is present in the Director of Public Safety section, should never be used, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations
  • Honduras section, why is "nervous breakdown" in quotes?
  • Director of Public Safety section, "At the urging of Butler's father, U. S. Rep. Thomas S. Butler, the newly elected mayor of Philadelphia". Do we really need the name of Butler's father in here? We already know about him (and his career as a representative) from the Early life and family section.
  • Military retirement and later years section, the punctuation is screwy in the first sentence. I'm not exactly sure how it should be fixed to convey the correct meaning, or I would have fixed it myself :)
  • Done I reworded a lot of the paragraph but I think it flows better know. --Kumioko (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other awards, "Butler also received several awards from other countries". Such as?
  • The only award I can find that is mentioned specifically is the French one thats already listed (its the last one with the circle in the middle)> All the references just say something like other foreign awards. I will keep looking though and if I find something I will add it. --Kumioko (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps say something like "several awards from other countries, such as the French National Order of Merit,..." It just seems incomplete to have that sentence as it is.

As I believe these to be some fairly serious sourcing concerns, I am going to leave my review at this point for now. Once the above issues have been resolved, I will go through and do a full review of the prose. Dana boomer (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The references are looking much better, and so I have replaced my oppose with comments. I have struck the issues I consider completed, and added a few more that popped up in a review of the prose. Thank you for your prompt responses; I am looking forward to supporting this article's promotion in the near future. Dana boomer (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still two comments that have not been fixed or replied on, although I think that was just because they got lost in all of the text. I have marked them with "notdone" templates to make them stand out more. Dana boomer (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still one issue with the Frazier ref, plus waiting to see if you can find any more info on awards from other countries and backup sources for the World War I section, although the last two are not deal-breakers. Looking more improved every day, though! Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final "deal-breaker" for me has been fixed, so I have changed to a support. Nice work on the article, and thanks for the quick responses to all of my comments. Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support as far as prose, reliable sources, and accuracy are concerned. I'm not qualified on the image issues. (although I can be persuaded, after some fixes)Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko has been diligent in fixing all the cite problems I've raised. I have reservations about the format of the source section, division of Notes from inline citations and general references that inform the work but that the editor hasn't cited specifically. BUT that aside, this is an interesting article about a colorful man. It was informative and informed, and I enjoyed reading and learned something. Always a good thing. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources. Unlike Dana, I have no problem with the sources, especially his letters. Typically, a collection of letters would have the writer as an author, and presumably, the "second" author is the one who collected and edited them. Actually, the sources look fine, but the presentation is a morass of confusion. There is a bibliography that seems to include "notes", and a second thing that includes inline citations, and a third that includes other kinds of sources, generally a confusing assortment of citations. I'm all about flexibility as far as citation presentations go–I have no problem if someone wants to use the templates, or does not, or whatever–but this is a mix of several styles. It either needs to be explained, or a single style chosen and adhered to throughout the article. In terms of the public domain material, this should be cited just like everything else, and the qualification removed. If it's from the the Marine Corps site, fine, still source it. We need to know where some piece of info came from, even if it is a "public domain" site. And if you've done that already, which it looks like you have in a couple of places, then why is the disclaimer still there? Haverford awarded him his high school diploma June 6, 1898 before the end of his final year; it states he completed the Scientific Course "with Credit." This has no cite, and I'm not even sure what it means.????
Due to there being a number of things in this paragraph I am going to try and break it up and address each one individually.
  • Comment - The bibliography and footnotes sections are seperate, the bibliography lists the books that Smedley Butler himself wrote and the footnotes section is for things that are just notes to clarify something without having to add a bunch of text that doesn't relate directly to the topic but are also not references.
Then the "bibliography" should be actually a section in the article, titled Writings. If you use books he wrote as sources, they should go under "sources". Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that using either writings or bibliography (just like using sources or references) was appropriate for listing works that were written by the subject. I have no problem changing that though and will do that in a moment. And it is a seperate section. It is above, but not connected too the references. --Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The references secton simply contains all the different types of references, those that are "inline", the "general" references used in the article and those references that are just extra external links that are not used as references per sey but add additional verifiability as a link.
This is very confusing. I'm not sure why you don't keep them in the same place. What do others say? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, to me, it seems like it would be more confusing if they were all together, how would you tell the difference between an inline citation and a general reference. For example in many cases I give the full citation with publisher, ISBN, etc in the general reference and then cite the specific page for the inline citation. So if you see Foo p. 5 you can then look at the general reference for Foo and see what all the info is rather than putting the full citation with repetative info (except the page #) over and over.. --Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In regards to using multiple styles for refs. I use the same style througout r I don't understand what your trying to say here, which is utilizing the Cite templates, except were I use the same reference multiple times were I use ref name so I am not sure I understand the problem here.
If you are using the citation templates, then your cites should all be consistent, and they are not. See below. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out and I will fix those. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand what you are trying to say about the public domain material pertaining to the Marine Corps. As far as I could tell it is cited.
If it is cited properly, then why do you have the disclaimer? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thats a valid point but a while back someone brought up a point to me regarding the use of disclaimers and that was if we use a disclaimer on a page then its easy to go and pull in articles from a certain source such as DANFS, without it, you have to try and use all the categories. Personally, I don't care either way and would be happy to remove it if the feeling is that it detracts from the article. --Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - I will do some research on the Haverford credit question, clarify it and add a reference for it or remove it as appropriate.
  • Prose. Weeeeelllllllll. I'm hoping someone else will go through this for prose issues because it has a lot of prose issues. In the Boxer Rebellion section, for example, I'm really not sure who got shot doing what. It sounds like Smedley went after a wounded officer, and several people got themselves wounded trying to get him out? And in the end, Smedley and the wounded officer went to the rear? I know the Marine Corps thing is no man left behind.... Other prose problems. This is an example:
Done - Seems reasonable:

In 1903 Butler was stationed in the Caribbean on Culebra Island. The United States government ordered the Marines and several Navy ships to sail to Honduras, 1500 miles to the west. The Marines were to protect the U.S. Consulate in Honduras from Honduran rebels after a revolution had begun. Several hundred Marines were transported on a converted banana boat named the Panther. They landed at the port town of Puerto Cortes. In a letter home Butler stated they were "prepared to land and shoot everybody and everything that was breaking the peace"[15], but instead found a quiet town. After a short time, the Marines boarded the Panther and continued up the coast line, stopping at several towns along the way looking for rebels. They found nothing. When they arrived at Trujillo; however, they heard gunfire. A 55-hour-long battle had been going on between the Bonillistas and the Honduran soldiers at the fort. Butler took a detachment of Marines and marched to the American consulate, where he found the consul, wrapped in an American flag, hiding in the floor beams. At the sight of the Marines, the fighting ceased. As soon as the marines left, the battle continued and the Bonillistas soon controlled the government.[15]

This is missing commas, has some unusual (non-standard) usage of semi-colons, and generally could use a good tweaking. How about:

In 1903, Butler was stationed in the Caribbean on Culebra Island. Upon rumors of a Honduran revolt, the United States government ordered the Marines, supported by a naval detachment, to sail to Honduras, 1,500 miles (2,414 km) to the west, to defend the U.S. Consulate in Honduras. Using a converted banana boat renamed the Panther, Butler and several hundred Marines landed at the port town of Puerto Cortes. In a letter home Butler stated they were "prepared to land and shoot everybody and everything that was breaking the peace"[15], but instead found a quiet town. The Marines reboarded the Panther and continued up the coast line looking for rebels at several towns. They found none. When they arrived at Trujillo, however, they heard gunfire. A 55-hour-long battle had been going on between the Bonillistas and the Honduran soldiers at the fort. //which fort? what fort? huh?// Butler led a detachment of Marines to the American consulate, where he found the consul, wrapped in an American flag, hiding in the floor beams. At the sight of the Marines, the fighting ceased. As soon as they left, the battle continued and the Bonillistas soon controlled the government.[15]

what happened to the consul? why did they leave? did they take him away with them?

  • Lead.
Done - How many medals? Numerous is such a vague word, and don't we know???? After all, he was the most decorated marine, so, we probably do know.
Done - Also, call me old fashioned, but I'm one of those opposed, generally, to citations in the lead. Especially a string of them like that, making it incredibly awkward. Presumably, you're going to go into detail on the allegations he made, which you do, so I'd have no problem if there were no citations. , but I left the note. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you went through it. I should point out that the paragraph I listed above was an example of the kinds of problems, not the only problem. I went through it with a grammatical pencil, and fixed some of the punctuation problems and repetitiveness but ran into an edit conflict with another and lost some of them. Probably you should check to make sure I didn't mess up your citations.
The article still has some referencing issues. What is the difference between a footnote and an inline citation? Inline cite #18 looks and sounds much like the footnotes do. And why are "general" citations separated from both notes and inline citations? I don't understand why you did this, and it should be clear why, or they should all be simply "Citations" Why not have them all as "Notes and Citations". Or have the citations with text as notes, and those without as citations?
Vis-a-Vis consistency:
  • Inline cite #5 has a spelling error. And no page #.
  • Inline cite #10 has no ISBN
  • Inline cite #30 has a stray mark -- ?
  • Inline Cite 31 had different punctuation
  • Sorry I don't understand whats wrong with this one --Kumioko (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inline cite #12 is formatted differently than the others (date is in different place). Author's name is done differently, and it seems to be more of a note, not a simple cite. Either you're using a different template, or you've changed from templates?
  • Inline cite #26 is incomplete--author's name and page number?
  • The info was already in 2 other refs so I deleted the 3rd. --Kumioko (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prose pruning and I apologize for the edit conflict, I think that was me. I went in to do some minor things and didn't look to see if anyone was already in it. I will fix the above citation problems and let you know when I am done. Thanks again for the help with getting this article to the next level. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, I can see part of the problem. Your list of Butler's writings such be labeled as "Works" or "Writings" or some such thing. A Bibliography usually refers to your sources for the article.
  • Sorry for sticking my head in here (and AuntieRuth, I hope you don't mind me posting in your section). However, per WP:LAYOUT, on Wikipedia, bibliographies are generally used as another name for the works/publications section. It can also be used as a sources section title, but that page says ""Bibliography" may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography." I realize this is different from a good part of the scholarly world, who use "bibliography" to mean "sources" on a regular basis. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem Dana. WP has some counter intuitive layout, and I have no problem with Kumioko calling Butler's writings "Bibliography" but it should be clearly distinguished from the sources. Perhaps making it a subheading of Butler as a speaker and writer. Or perhaps changing the name...Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LAYOUT is pretty clear that the Bibliography (or whatever it is called) should be a seperate section, and calls it a "standard appendice" rather than part of the article body. However, one of the other names (perhaps Works or Publications) would work for me, although I think that it is clear enough that it is not a list of sources as it currently is. Dana boomer (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, that works, as long as the citations and inlines and notes etc. are clarified, although I would still call it "Works". Suggested readings should be Further readings (per WP:LAYOUT , etc., see below.Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second, your sources are still screwy confusing, and inconsistent.
  1. I still think your "general" citations belong with the others, although I'm not sure you're using them as inline citations. If you don't actually cite them in the article, then add them to your "Suggested Reading" section and I would change the name of Suggested Reading to Further reading (to keep with Wikipedia's neutral position). Also, you've qualified the Lowell Thomas entry. Why is that? He is among the foremost journalists of the century, and he should be wikilinked.
    Partially Done There were a couple of refs that I wasn't using so I moved them to the further reading. The suggested reading has been changed to further reading. Iam not sure what you mean by "qualified". He is wikilinked. --Kumioko (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    you gave him as a suggested reading, but qualified your statement with commentary on how valuable or not he might be. I wikilinked Lowell Thomas for you.
  2. I suggest changing names of some of your sections:

#:Create a section called Sources and as subsections of this section:

  1. Notes (formerly footnotes)
    Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations (formerly inline)
    Done, I think. Because I have seversal military award "citations" I felt that just putting citations would be confusing so I changed this to Inline citations to be more clear and I changed general to general references. I think the thing that makes this confusing is that he has done so much and had so much written about him that we are using a lot of different sections. --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Your "inlines" still have different punctuation. See 1 4 9 10 19-21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 31 and 30 has a misplaced quotation mark after it. Some have a comma after the author's name, and some do not. It should be consistent, especially if you're using a template, unless you're not using it right. I can't help you there. I don't use them. #15 has an extra period after the C. Should only be one period
  3. Done I fixed the ones that had the extra periods and commas, but I don't understand the problem with the others. They look fine to me. --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    whatever you did fixed the other.
  4. Your "inlines" are not clear on what the source is. For example, 1 Schmidt- is that Schmidt, Hans (1998). Maverick Marine, or Schmidt, Hans (1987) To Hell with Admirals....? which appears to be part of the other book???? 10 Boot p. 144 Boot, Max (2003). ? If that is the same reference, then why is one in the "inline" and the other reference to it under "general"?
    Done - Schmidt only refers to The Maverick Marine reference. I fixed the excerpt thing to use that book. --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. if Wade Frazier is one of your sources, and he appears to be, he shouldn't be in the external links section. I used to do that, thinking that's what external links were for, but apparently external links are for additional places to find info that we haven't used int he article. At least that is how it was explained to me.
    Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. why is Jules Archer in your Further reading section? You've cited him in your article.
    Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still having problems with how you've organized your citations. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wade ref is fixed, when I removed it as an inline citation I didn't notice it as a general reference. --Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- Very good article about an interesting character, well written/sourced/structured/illustrated. I've done a light copyedit but a few other things:

Thanks for the copyedit. I appreciate all the help I can get. Does this mean that you are opposing or are you do you support? --Kumioko (talk)
Neither support not oppose as yet! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life and family: Don't think you need the citation in the first sentence since the next citation is the same.
    Done - I agree --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking and writing career and Anti-War activity: Not sure why "Anti-War" needs to be in capitals, nor "Fascist" later in the section.
    Done - Me either. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honors and awards: Although quite nicely presented and properly cited, the pretty pictures of the medals seem unnecessary since they are linked and all the medal info can be accessed that way; it also tends to unbalance the article IMO. We had quite a debate about presenting this sort of thing in the Australian MilHist Task Force and compromised on putting all this stuff in hidden sections, e.g. as in Frederick Scherger.
    The medals are there to show the military medals he had and are displayed in the proper order as he would wear them on his military uniform. I don't really agree that it throws the article out of balance but I respect your opinion. Not sure what the point of a hidden section would be. If someon were reading the article I doubt they would know to look at extra "hidden" info that can only be seen by editing the article. Even if they did, if it were me, I would be inclined to not trust it if it was being suppressed in a hidden state. I could make the images smaller. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I could point you to the discussion where questions of imagecruft, listcruft, original research (due to interpretation from photos or general knowledge of what was worn where, rather than direct sourced evidence) and so on were raised if you're ready for a grand debate! Without trying to offend, I also think that this emphasis on the medal ribbons and their arrangement belongs in a children's book rather than an encyclopdia. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography: I tend to see "Bibliography" as your sources for the article, not the subject's writings; suggest "Writings" or "Works" or some such instead.
    I don't understand what your trying to say on this one. Could you clarify please? --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically same comment Auntieruth55 made and DanaBoomer chimed in on above. I've always seen "Bibliography" used as a heading for sources/references for an article, but not for the article subject's published works, so suggesting you can avoid confusion by changing the heading to say "Published works" or some such. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - I changed this to Published works. --Kumioko (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inline citations: Suggest just "Citations".
    Thats how I had it originally but another reviewer felt it was confusing so I clarified it. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - Hopefully this doesn't upset one reviewer to appease another. If this is a problem let me know and well work through it. --Kumioko (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I see the above discussion but I don't think it should get confused with citations for medals, however I don't mind too much leaving it as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General references: Just "References" looks better, not sure what's "general" about them.
    Thats how I had it originally but another reviewer felt it was confusing so I clarified it. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw mentions re. the section but not advocating the heading per se. I still think it should be "References" only, that's a very common usage.
    Done--Kumioko (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I'm still waffling. Ian, what do you think? The section now called "REferences" includes inline citations, just like the previous section. Do you think they should be combined? I understand the inclination to pull notes from the citations, but I'm still on the other side of the fence re dividing citations into two (or more) groups depending on some distinction between the kinds of sources they are. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am really confused on this references thing that keeps coming up. You say you want to merge the 2 references sections but if you do how do you tell the difference between references that are used as inline citations (I.e. the top group) with references that are used as references for those citations. (I.e. the bottom group). These 2 groups of references rely on each other but are distinctly different. If you review the rules on using inline citations it shows that this is an acceptable style and the use of the citation template, for several reasons, is better to use although I will grant you that it IS much harder to use. If I do not do it the way I did you end up with a cluttered looking references section were all the inline ciations are the same except a page number and it is even more confusing when trying to cull through. I understand you don't like using them and thats ok, but it is a valid way to do it. I think that its called harvard style or something I can't remember exactly. I hope this helps. Here is the link to the refence styleguide How to present citations. There are 2 exceptions though, 1) Because this article already uses a Notes or Footnotes section to present notes about information contained in the article I had to change the name a little so that it was clear that the 2 were different. Apparently not clear enough though. The 2nd thing I just noticed when I reread the rules myself are that I did not include the year, which I do not think is needed because there is only one version of the reference but I will gladly do if need be. Here is an example of a featured article that uses the shortened footnotes method. This article also has shortened footnotes with the Year, title and page number. --Kumioko (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, look, the only thing that really appears odd to me about what's in the Reference section is the page numbers. Page numbers should only appear in the inline citations. Oh, and I'd usually expect to see a publishing location as well as a publisher for each entry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I removed the page numbers from the references, but I am not sure what you mean by the publisher location. In one case I saw something that said publisher name and then New York, but I don't know if thats the publisher location or the headquarters location of the company so I left it out. If thats the publisher location I can add it, no problem.--Kumioko (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference between the FA example and what you've done is the sections in which the editor lists sources. There is a Notes section that contains all the inline citations. The next section lists all the sources consulted in full format, including the location and the ISBNs, even divided by the types of sources: Bios, primary sources (things the subject wrote, like her letters), and secondary sources that were not bios. The references for Smedley Butler keep appearing as a point of contention because they were, and in some cases still are, ambiguous. Your References section includes four books that are not that you've cited, right?, but it doesn't include the other material you've cited. Your references section does not list all your sources. I'm wondering, also, if your citations section actually does list all your citations. In your references section (used to be called "general" didn't you have page numbers that were not included in your inline citations? I'm wondering if they should have been?). Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I didn't have the references in a notes section is because 1) I have a notes section with notes and 2) they are not "notes" they are references or citations. My citations section contains ALL the citations used as "inline citations". The references section has the full citation info with ISBN, Author, publisher, etc for all the shortened references used. So if you see something in the citations section that says Schmidt pg. 5 you can go to the references section and see what Schmidt is. I removed the page numbers from the references because they did not refer to a specific page number that represented the number of pages in the book. If you see a reference that seems ambiguous please tell me which one and how its ambiguous and I will be glad to fix it. I originally had the references that Butler wrote but I was told I had to move them to a bibliography, eventhough a couple are also used as references. I hope this helps but know I am confused, because it seems as though we are all using different reference styles when doing articles and we are all confusing each other. --Kumioko (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth, the Citations and Reference sections appear to be in sync as they are, e.g. Kumioko uses the citation "Schmidt p. 39" to refer to the book "Schmidt, Hans (1998). Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History (reprint ed.). University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-0957-4." The citations that don't refer to an entry under References appear to be either online or journal sources that include satisfactory details and don't need an entry under References. I agree that using page refs in the entries in the References section and in the Published Works was/is confusing, and if they represented "missing citations" then that'd need to be looked at; however Kumioko seems to be assuring us that everything that needs to be cited inline is cited inline. So my last recommendation is that the page refs in two of the entries under Published Works which seem to be unnecessary and ought to be removed. As an aside, if anything in Published Works was cited, the book in question would need to appear under References as well; however, that doesn't seem to be the case here despite the confusing page refs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the page numbers from the published works. They were just there to show the number of pages of the book and werent really necessary. --Kumioko (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closure due. This review has overrun its review period and closure is now overdue. At present the article has the minimum three supports required for promotion, but due to an outstanding issue Ian is withholding his opinion. Is this likely to be resolved within the next couple of days? If so, I'm willing to hold off on closing the review for the time being. EyeSerenetalk 10:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All my concerns have been resolved except what I consider the imagecruft of the medal ribbons, so although I thank Kumioko for his willingness to address all the other points and believe the article is the better for that, I can't in all conscience offer unqualified support. While our de facto standard at this level is not to go into such detail on the medals, we have no policy that precludes it outright and it's not really fair to make Kumioko's ACR suffer for that. That, plus the general excellence of the work, prevents me opposing on this one point, so in effect I'm abstaining... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed on Kumioko's willingness to work on the article and to make fixes. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the replies. I think that addresses any lingering concerns I had that there was an "oppose" in the offing, so I'll go ahead and close up shortly. EyeSerenetalk 18:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Smedley_Butler&oldid=791880519"