User talk:Btphelps/Archive/archive6

Kokoda Track Campaign

I reverted an edit saying that the Allied ULTRA intelligence estimate of Japanese strength was inaccurate. The figures we have today match the ones used by the high command at the time. As for quality, after Singapore and Bataan, the Allies were not overconfident concerning the quality of the enemy so far as I can tell, but I'll accept a reliable source if you can find one. Maps though were poor. They used cross-hatching instead of contours, scales were for the airman, and there were big, ominous areas that were completely uncharted.

Good luck getting this article into shape! You'll need it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation style

Hi Btphelps. Just a quick one on the citation style employed in the Kokoda Track campaign article. There was a consistency issue with the citation style in that article which I felt that I'd fixed last week or so, however, your most recent edits reintroduce this inconsistency. Can you please clarify why you've changed all the Milner, Keogh and McCarthy refs, but not others such as say Stanley, Tanaka, etc. The article looked good before in my opinion, however, I'm not tied to the citation style (although the one you are employing does not seem to be all that common). If you wish to use the one you've reintroduced, that's fine but can you please change all of them? — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for checking in. I simply hadn't got to all of them yet. It's a bit time consuming, as you can imagine, to be sure I don't introduce errors in the process. I too was trying for some consistency. I also felt the number of references make it harder to make sense of the information. I completed the edits in stages for each author in case I did anything egregiously wrong. I'll do the rest later this week if that's ok with you.

Question: in some instances, there is more than one reference to the same footnote in the same paragraph. Is this absolutely necessary? I thought WP guidelines were on the order of at least one ref per paragraph, unless an item is perhaps controversial, or there is doubt about its authenticity.-- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For higher reviews one citation per paragraph is usually not enough. Also for an article like Kokoda (which seems to be a target of much dubious information) I'd suggest citing most if not all points, even if they are duplicates. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GAN - Phi Sigma Alpha

Hi, have you decided whether this Talk:Phi Sigma Alpha/GA1 review is completed to your satisfaction? It has been open quite a long time. Thanks,—mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I'd forgotten about it. I was expecting some response from the article authors to the comments posted thus far. None received, no changes made, thus failed. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it a fail????, most of the problems I fixed, most that I dint was aither I did not agree with them or that I was waiting for you to finish the review, or I did not know how to do it, this is the first time a nominate an article for GA and I dont know if there was a Process to follow, I did not know I had to answer your post, please reconsider the fail, for I am willing to improve the article. regards El Johnson(talk) 05:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please add comments to the GA1 review summarizing what you did and what you ignored. I assumed because no comments were entered that nothing was done to the article. If you would like to resubmit it for GA again I will review it again. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I will be working with the review's concerns and will proceed to re-nominate. The article's author does not have any experience with GA nominations, which is why he didn’t respond in the review itself. However, he did try to work with the issues (as seen here) and has worked the article to a degree where I can push it to GA with some work. If you have further comments involving the review, publish them in the article's talk page and we will take care. Regards, -Caribbean~H.Q. 05:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Holt Manufacturing Company

Hi. I haven't checked the new page in detail, as I haven't had time, but the lede paragraph looks incomplete. It mentions 'tract-type' (which is a phrase I don't recognise), and at the end just trails off... Could you have another look please?

EdJogg (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was late when I stopped editing. See what you think now. Suggestions are welcome. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Lede looks fine now. Haven't read the remainder yet but it's on my ToDo list to read through sometime. I usually try to keep track of article changes on my watchlist, but when they go through a step-change like this it really depends on my workload as to whether they get read 'soon'. (Future changes are monitored regardless.) Cheers. EdJogg (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I added some more detail I found. It's all I can do for now. Maybe a DYK in there. I'll see if I can produce one.-- btphelps^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find something there. Is it a big enough expansion (I haven't looked nor worked out the maths)? Let me know if you do come up with a DYK and I'll try to keep an eye on it -- and also try to do a proof-read before the DYK goes live....but no promises! --EdJogg (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Added a DYK nom today. -- btphelps^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Noted. First option is probably best. Hard to make it more snappy since you are trying to connect several multiple-noun phrases: "Holt Manufacturing Company", "crawling-type tread tractor", "British General Ernest Dunlop Swinton", "World War 1", etc. The hook is clearly interesting, so provided it is all obviously referenced, you should be fine with it. -- EdJogg (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Review

I've started looking at the page. You'll see that I usually tackle these a section at a time over an extended period. It should be easy for you to track my progress (or lack of)! Since we haven't worked together before, please keep an eye on my edit summaries and also watch for any comments left within the text -- sometimes a term needs clarifying, but doesn't warrant a conversation on the talk page. (These comments will be aimed at you, although they won't say as such. Feel free to remove once the text has been clarified.)

Initially I have had problems with Redwood. I have seen this used three times with at least two different meanings. This is a DAB page and there are multiple possibilities, from which I cannot choose.

I have been bold and adjusted your headings. Since level two headings are underlined, and the majority of the article is 'history', I think it looks neater having most of the headings as level three -- the narrative logically flows from section to section, and a level 2 heading is inclined to prevent this. Some of the heading titles need attention too, in particular, those that start with a verb. I've tackled a couple, but it would be safest if you can address the others.

This is an interesting article, so I shall keep on looking at it over the next couple of days -- hopefully before the DYK goes live!

EdJogg (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to tackle a review. I'm used to a different style of writing where heads should contain verbs, so feel free to amend any that don't fit Wikipedia's encyclopedia approach.

Yes, it's all history, but it makes no sense to have an article of all the same level headings. I used the headings to provide the user some needed "chunking" that makes the content more accessible. There are many articles that are entirely history -- like the Battle of the Bulge -- that are not subjected to the rule of a single h2 heading followed by all h3 headings. Let's discuss please.

I think it's relatively complete from my perspective. Once you finish your edits, maybe you can let me know if you think it's GA-worthy.-- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, I suspected you might have an opinion over the headings. As I haven't read through the entire article I can't (yet) suggest how it should be broken up, but I agree that a single history section is not ideal. I was 'bold' in this instance because the sections seem to flow chronologically, but the underlines of the level 2 headings were getting in the way. I ran out of lunchtime, so I'll try to make some more progress later this evening, as I am mindful of the DYK clock ticking...

As for GA-worthiness, I was thinking just that as I was reading it. Gut feeling is that it's got all it needs, although you may find that the prose needs tightening up further. (That's not a criticism of your writing, just an observation from the previous GAC reviews I've been involved with.) Have you tackled a GA candidate article before?

EdJogg (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've evaluated several articles for GA, approved a couple, denied a couple, and written two that were approved for GA. So I'm familiar with the criteria. This is probably about 90% there. Would appreciate any edits to improve the prose. I'm in California FYI, so your evening comes earlier than mine. Have some other critical projects this week, so will squeeze in a few updates on breaks while at work as time permits. --btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem more than qualified then... just wanted to check before putting my foot in it!

It seemed sensible to start noting comments on the article talk page, so I have done that. I have mentioned that I think the headings still need attention (I note that you have revised them) but, although I may change some of the wording if it seems appropriate, I won't change the levels again unless it is clear that the article structure is improved by the change. I suspect that other editors may also have differing views though.

I used the DAB tool to check for DAB links, and all is clear. Thanks for sorting out redwood -- the capital 'R' really confused me!

EdJogg (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to suggestions for the headings. There were phases in the company's history -- perhaps someone else can see them more clearly and organize the headings appropriately. Please do tinker with the wordings of the headings. I'm not used to -- and frankly don't agree with-- the style of headings that Wikipedia calls for. I confess I like headings with verbs. Will look at your comments on the talk page and add what I can. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard work reviewing an article that is changing a lot. I noticed your recent batch of changes. Do you think you are 'done' now, or are you planning further re-arrangement in the near future? (Please take these comments/questions at face value. There is no hidden anger/annoyance/whatever behind them, I just want to avoid covering the same ground several times as I'm going to have to start at the top again!) -- EdJogg(talk) 10:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I understand. I'm really tired of working on this article. It has been a challenge to organize the information effectively. Please take another whack at it. I'd like to make as few additional changes as possible. Please be bold and make any changes you feel are appropriate.--btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

George Marshall

Hi, Btphelps,

I made the edits to the George C. Marshall page. I'm a wikipedia rookie, so hopefully I didn't step on anyone's toes.

As to the section on Marshall's WW I memoirs, I'm not sure why that should have been removed. I'm not sure what part of my edit wasn't factual or neutral. I think someone looking up George Marshall on this page might be interested to learn more about how he thought and how WW I shaped his thinking by checking out his memoirs. The book isn't widely known, but I found it to be excellent; I think it should be on every professional military reading list.

With regard to the section on abbreviated training and replacements, I tried to bring a little more balance to the original. I think most historians regard Marshall as one of the giants of WW II, but a high school or college student who reads the WW II section is going to come away with a pretty negative opinion of him. I think it's debatable whether the abbreviated training system he approved caused the defeat at Kasserine Pass -- after all, it was the U.S. 1st Infantry Division that fought that battle, a unit that had one of the highest percentage of Regulars and had been training constantly for the last several years (Louisiana Maneuvers, etc), and therefore was not affected by abbreviated training as newer divisions. I don't think their defeat can be pinned on Marshall. All armies go through a learning curve - in the case of the Americans, they were fighting armies (German and Japanese) that had several years head start, and yet fairly quickly bested both, if not in their first battles, then in their first campaigns (Tunisia and Guadalcanal/Cartwheel).

With regard to the section on replacement policy, again I think it's debatable that this was a failure, or if it was, that it was Marshall's fault. Most of the references in the original article are anecdotal. The 90 Division Gamble in Command Decisions lays out the rationale for Marshall's decision pretty well, and my edit included both sides of the argument. The replacement policy seemed to work adequately in the Pacific, Italy, Southern France, and the Ninth and Third Armies. That it failed in the First Army (Huertgen and Bulge) might have been due to local factors beneath Marshall's pay grade.

Just my two cents. The training and replacement controversies may merit their own pages, summarized and linked from Marshall's, but not included in the body. I'd hate for a student to come away thinking that Marshall was inadequate during WW II because I think most people think otherwise. For your consideration, sincerely. —Preceding unsigned comment added byRegular09 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally do not know a lot about Marshall. My previous knowledge of him was generally positive. I've read criticism on the replacement policy, and it could probably be worked up into an article on its own if someone wanted to take the time.

On Wikipedia, what counts is reliable sources. Anecdotes may be cited if they are relevant, notable and sourced. If you can find quality sources for the viewpoints you cite, by all means add them. No one should dispute anything based on quality sources. I think the problem with your edits is that they were big, removed validly sourced info, and were not discussed on the talk page first. So go ahead and add any relevant information you have, just be sure it is well sourced.

And don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~ -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Fact

When using {{fact}}, you can either leave the date off and a WP:BOT will come along behind you and add it automagically, or you have to use the date=February 2010 parameter. Because that parameter is used to categorize things, the exact text of the date does matter.— MrDolomite • Talk 02:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry to butt in!) I suggest you just let the bot do its stuff; I do. This has the added advantage of attracting the bot to the page which can result in some other housekeeping improvements being applied 'for free'. -- EdJogg (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, both. Thanks for the input. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on thecoordinator academy course and in theresponsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of White Stag Leadership Development Program

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article White Stag Leadership Development Program you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

I noticed that you are taking a siesta. Please let me know if you are available to work on this article during the review period. If not, I would prefer to wait until you are to start a review in earnest. Thanks.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks very much for taking this on. It's been sitting there awaiting review for a while. -- btphelps^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. You're here. OK, I'll start working through it over the next few days. Please watch the review page for comments and feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just checking. Are you still working on the article or should I close the GA review? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Started a new job two weeks ago and am just getting up to speed on it. Finished another article that was featured onDYK. Would appreciate a couple more weeks. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will let you know if it shows up on the GA "overdue" list. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Holt Manufacturing Company

I'm putting it is a lead, but need your advice on tweaking the hook and finding right picture. The tractor ones don't look well in the 100x100px box. Linking to first tanks should attract readers, but we haven't got WP picture for MarkI, only for later models. Thus a drafts is

A prototype of the Holt Gas Electric Tank (1918)

... that the Holt Manufacturing Company made a crawling-type tractor, which was used in World War I and inspired design of first British tanks (example pictured)? Thoughts? Materialscientist (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The prototype Holt Gas Electric Tank really didn't have a lot to do with inspiring the British tank, but was developed in the US as a prototype US tank model (which was rejected) while the British firm William Foster & Co. were already building the British Tank. That hook might be misleading if not factually incorrect. The Holt 75 was the primary model used as an artillery tractor during World War I and probably the model seen by Swinton. Here's my suggestion for a hook and a high-quality contemporary image you might consider.

Holt 75 tractor, circa 1914

... that the Holt Manufacturing Company patented the first practical crawling-type tractor (pictured), which was used as an artillery tractor in World War I and inspired design of the first British tanks?

(200 characters) I've added the picture to the article. Thanks for asking. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice picture (and article). Thanks. BTW, "pictured" can be discounted in the hook length. Materialscientist (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't sure about the character count, thanks for the info. And thanks for your kind words about the article. It was a challenge to write. --btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Holt Manufacturing Company

On March 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Holt Manufacturing Company, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery byBrownBot (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Birth related articles

Just a quick note to say what a good job you have been doing on the birth related articles. I'll try and find some references for the 'fact' tags you have been putting in. Thanks! Gillyweed (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I have a little interest in that area, as four of my five sons were born at home, and I was married to a lay midwife for several years. I was surprised to see that so important a topic is not that well covered. -- btphelps^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Tl

You might find {{Tl}} useful; for example {{tl|Infobox person}} gives {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk;Andy's edits 12:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a new one for me. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Crosby

On March 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Crosby, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

My email to you, Btphelps, about edit of Choate

Hi Btphelps, I've emailed you about the Choate Rosemary Hall article. Thanks very much. Micheldene —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheldene (talk • contribs) 22:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dates for Poe

May I ask what makes you think a 1927/1928 modern reprint of "The Fall of the House of Usher" qualifies as the first publication of that story by Poe? Your edit summary said you "corrected" the lede, which previously noted its first publication in 1839. Is my math wrong? I have restored the correct version. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Shows my ignorance, I beg your pardon! -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Holt Manufacturing Company

The article Holt Manufacturing Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Holt Manufacturing Company for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review it. Much appreciated! Glad you found it worthy. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. That was a remarkably smooth review process (I guess we must have done something right!) And thank you for the barnstar. It is most appreciated. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caresse Crosby

The article Caresse Crosby you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article may eventually meet the good article criteria, but there are a number of changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Caresse Crosby for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of White Stag Leadership Development Program

The article White Stag Leadership Development Program you nominated as a good article has passed; see Talk:White Stag Leadership Development Program for eventual comments about the article. Well done!

DYK for Richard R. Peabody

On April 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard R. Peabody, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Article: Ric McIver

A few days ago you nominated the article Ric McIver for speedy deletion due to lack of notability. After a discussion with the administrator who fulfilled your request, I've recreated the article from a userfied copy. WP:POLITICIAN clearly states that "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city" ARE in fact notable enough for a Wikipedia article, as are those who "received significant press coverage". Ric McIver fulfills both of these requirements, as a alderman on the City of Calgary council, and through media attention received as the front runner in the upcoming mayoral elections. Both of these facts were clearly stated in the stub when you nominated it for deletion. If you still feel the article is not appropriate, either for notability or other reasons, please feel free to follow the process outlined atWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. However, the article is not a proper candidate for speedy deletion. Thanks! --Dbo789 (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the notability of politicians. I was not familiar with Ric McIver or his locale. I don't patrol new articles very often, so the notability of local politicians was news to me. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

UTC)