Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/WAVES

The following discussion is closed. 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 promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

WAVES[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk)

Featured article candidates/WAVES/archive1

Nominated for A-class on behalf of Pendright per [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks at the plight of women seeking to enter the U.S. Navy in Word War II; the difficulties they encountered along the way, and the challenges they faced once in the service of their country. On 30 July 1942, the WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service) became the Women’s reserve branch of the United States Naval Reserve. The idea of women serving in the Navy during the War was not widely supported in the Congress, or by the Navy itself. But with the manpower shortages, women were needed to replace men for sea duty. Several notable women, including Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of the president, laid the groundwork for the passage of the law. It allowed women to serve in the U. S. Navy as an officer or at an enlisted level with a rank or rate consistent with that of the regular Navy. The article was promoted to GA in February 2016 without any thought, on my part, of pursuing ACR. Since then, I have changed my mind, and it has been reworked and reviewed by other editors. I welcome all comments. Pendright (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Pendright, nice work. I have a few suggestions (please see below). If there is anything you don't understand about my comments, please let me know and I will either try to clarify or help you with them. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"File:1939 Foreign Affairs Committee meeting.jpg": might be more visually appealing if the black border was cropped

Applying your cropping skills here would be appreciated! Thanks! Pendright (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the external links all work and there are no disambig links (no action required)
the article is well referenced (no action required)
headings: I suggest adding a level two header called "Training" and then subordinating "Training of officers" and "Training of enlisted" below that as level three headers

Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

headings: "Women of the WAVES": not quite sure this heading is best. I wonder if it should be Personnel?

Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

image placement: it is best to avoid sandwiching text between images, as such I think there might be one too many images in the Women of the WAVES section. I suggest maybe removing, or moving elsewhere "File:N3N female mechanic 1942 535576.jpg"

Image removed: File:N3N female mechanic 1942 535576.jpg - Pendright (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in the body of the article, there are a few terms that are overlinked: Women's Army Corps, Yeoman (F), and SPARS. These should only be linked once in the body (when they are first mentioned)

Unlinked- Pendright (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in the Song of the WAVES section, Anchors Aweigh should be presented in italics

Fixed - Pendright (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the See also section shouldn't contain non linked items, so I suggest removing SPARS, USMC Women's Reserve and Women's Army Corps

Removed - Pendright (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in the External links, I suggest moving the Campbell work to the Further reading section

Moved - Pendright (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

same as above for the Bureau of Naval Personnel work

Moved - Pendright (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the specific topic to which it refers is buried somewhere in a host of information and not readily accessible, requiring effort and patience on the part of a reader. For my part, removing it would not affect the article one-way or the other. Care to offer an opinion? Pendright (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, if you think it doesn't impact the article, I'm comfortable with it being removed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed - Pendright (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in the Further reading section, I suggest using the {{cite book}} template to format the entries as you have in the Bibliography. This will help keep the formating consistent

Done jointly - Pendright (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

suggest slightly rewording this: During the course of the war, seven of the WAVE officers and 62 of the enlisted women.... Perhaps this might be smoother: During the course of the war, seven WAVE officers and 62 enlisted women...

Fixed - Pendright (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Hopefully, all the bases have been covered – if not, please let me know if there is anything further I can dol. In any case, thank you for your generous support and the courteous manner in which you do your work.Pendright (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, happy to help. I've made a minor tweak to add some ISSNs to the journals in the Further reading section, otherwise it looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Is it correct to refer to a singular "WAVE"? Seems odd for an acronym
But consider the Women's Royal Naval Service, pronounced "wrens"; the individual was known as a "wren". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Common usage says it is acceptaibe, and that notion is suppoted by most of the references noted in the Biblography -Pendright (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest editing the poster caption for clarity

Fixed - Pendright (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ada_Louise_Comstock,_1923-1943_(13083782855).jpg: per the Flickr tag, are more specific copyright tags available? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 March 2018, this image was substituted for the one I had originally posted. The helpful editor who made the improvement shared this information with us:

Hi there. I checked the image file at the Commons. The marginal text on the original version states that it is from the Radcliffe Archives, and the Schlesinger Library posted the file at Flickr in 2014, stating that there are "no known copyright restrictions". The institution itself has made the image available, so the licensing tag used when it was uploaded at the Commons in 2016 is appropriate and sufficient.

The image depicts Ada Louise Comstock in her professional capacity at Radcliffe, and is stamped with an archival ID number. Since the institution's library posted the image at Flickr, it's evident that "the institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control ... or has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions". Further discussion could take place at the Commons. Pendright (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I believe I have answered the questions asked and have made the suggested changes. If not, I stand ready to continue trying. Thank you for your review.Pendright (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that any change has been made to the poster caption? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the question you raised in your opening comments, I jumped to the conclusion that you were suggesting I change WAVE to WAVES on all image captions. Since there is only one poster, I was obviously wrong. In any case, I think we may have gotten it right this time around. Thanks for your patience! Pendright (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support~~Oppose~~ from Hawkeye7

I thought we went over this at GA, but I'm still not happy with this paragraph:

Little attempt was made to recruit any African-American or other women minorities until October 1944, when President Roosevelt approved of accepting African-American women into the women's reserve. He was under pressure to do so from African-American organizations. Harriet Ida Pickens and Frances Wills were the first African-American women to become WAVE officers. By September 1945, there were 72 African-American women in the WAVES and integrated.

As written, this is incorrect on several points, and misleading on others. Let's take Integration of the Armed Forces down from the self. It points out on p. 74 that the legislation that established the WAVES said nothing about the inclusion or exclusion of people of colour, so the Navy Department decided that it should be exclusively white. (As were the SPARS, Navy Nurse Corps and the Women Marines.) So it was not a case of "little attempt"; they were deliberately excluded. The turning point was not some decision by Roosevelt, but the death of Frank Knox in April 1944. Knox had said that black WAVES would be enlisted over his dead body, and so it proved. His successor, James V. Forrestal, immediately acted to reform the Navy's race policies. He submitted his proposal to accept WAVES on an integrated basis on 28 July 1944. But 1944 was an election year, so Roosevelt decided to hold it up until after the election, which was on 7 November. Forrestal attempted to compromise by offering segregated living quarters and mess facilities. Then Roosevelt's opponent, Thomas E. Dewey, made an election issue of it when he criticised the administration for discriminating against black women. Roosevelt immediately issued the order on 19 October 1944. The promise of segregated quarters could not be maintained; each recruit company contained 250 women, and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company. It looked like this would become yet another excuse to exclude black women, but Captain McAfee appealed to Secretary Forrestal, and he dropped the segregation requirement. Some 72 African American WAVES were trained by at Hunter College Naval Training School by July 1945. While training was integrated, "black WAVES were restricted somewhat in speciality assignments and a certain amount of separate quartering within integrated barracks prevailed at some duty stations".(pp. 87-88) There were only 68 black WAVES in September 1945. Those that remained in the Navy after the war were employed without discrimination; but there were only five of them by September 1946. (p. 247)

I'm willing to re-write the paragraph, but not accept it as written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please rewrite the paragraph as you see fit. Thank you. Pendright (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have rewritten it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Thanks for all of your edits and for supporting the nomination.

Pendright (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by JennyOz I made some minor changes to this article in March then added some queries on talk page prior to watching this assessment. My only outstanding query is the apostrophe in Jacobs but am very happy to support. Thanks Pendright for your comprehensive coverage of this important branch. JennyOz (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Jacob's to Jacobs' - thanks for your edits and support. Pendright (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.