Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kenneth Walker/archive1

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [1].

Kenneth Walker[edit]

Kenneth Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another in the series on the commanders in the South West Pacific Area during World War II. Also another medal of honor winner. Kenneth Walker remains a controversial figure for his advocacy of strategic bombing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't use all-caps for titles
  • Publications should be italicized
  • Explanatory notes (14) need referencing too
  • Note 24: why no date?
  • Note 26, 52, 57, 61: publisher?
  • Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    • This site is quoted in 453 Wikipedia articles. It is a non-profit organisation supporting people whose hobby is locating wrecks in the bush. When writing the article on Howard K. Ramey I encountered trouble with news reports that his plane had been located when it had not. This site proved reliable. It is sourced only for stating that the wreck has not yet been found, as of April 2011. If I used Byrd, it would be as of ten years ago. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • RS's aren't my thing, but I think the usual question runs like this: under "references" on that page, it says: "Thanks to Douglas Walker, David Lindley, Steve Birdsall, Brian Bennett, Richard Dunn and Larry Hickey for additional information." Do we know which person this information came from? If not, then is anyone acting as a factchecker? If not, what makes these 6 people reliable sources? - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Douglas Walker is the general's son. Steve Birdsall is a well-known aviation historian. Again, the source is only used for the stement that the aircraft wreck is yet to be located. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since that is all its sourcing, that will do, but please note for the future that "used in 453 other articles" is not a valid rationale :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Craven&Cate: Vol. 1 and 4 of what?
    • Template. Should have been "series" instead of "work". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations or not
    • Added locations
  • Air University or Air University Press?
    • Standardised on Air University
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when in references
  • Why include state for the Maxwell but not the Bolling base?
    • I was not sure about whether Americans do this for an airbase which not located in any state. I am assured that they do, so added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I do have a few minor quibbles, but nothing worthy of an oppose All quibbles addressed. 14:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC). All in all, an engaging and interesting article on a man with a distinguished career. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a reason for not mentioning his rank in the lead?
    • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I've noticed some editors don't start with the rank, particularly on American officer biogrpahies and was just wondering if there was any particualr reason. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could not find the relevant section in the MOS. Somebody else may know. It could be a British thing, as many British people are known only by their titles
  • 'regular Army' means different things in different countries, so an explanation is required
  • The lead seems a little short to say the article is well over 3,000 words
    • The article would be longer if he had not got himself killed in 1943. Expanded the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely the reason for the MoH is worth mentioning in the lead?
    • To tell the truth, I came to the article writing up the generals of the Southwest Pacific rather than Medal of Honor winners (another editor is doing that). But you're right; it should be mentioned. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does he added combat observer to his command pilot rating in 1922 mean?
    • Meaning he qualified as a combat observer as well as a command pilot. Do you have a suggested better wording? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused: He received his Aircrew Badge in November 1918 and was commissioned as a temporary second lieutenant in the United States Army Air Service on 2 November 1918, but then it says received a commission in the regular Army as a first lieutenant on 1 July 1920 but was reduced in rank to second lieutenant on 15 December 1922
    • Meaning that he had a temporary commission, but later received a permanent one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes perfect sense! Could you clarify it in the article or am I jsut being dense? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re-worded. Not being dense, just sometimes it's hard to imagine how others might read it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • never demonstrated the "emotional exhilaration toward flying a high performance machine that is so typical of fighter pilots according to whom?
  • Is truly staggering a quote? If not, you might want to find a drier, more encyclopaedic phrase
  • Support - I would suggest moving the inline citation that is currently in the lede (since the lead just summerizes the information in the article there usually is no need for a citation in the lead. The lead also seems a bit long. Other than those 2 minor things I didn't see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed the stray ref, and trimmed the lead back a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "This bomber promised to provide the technical capability to implement the Air Corps Tactical School's doctrine." - source?
  • File:Genwalker.jpg - is there a date available for this image?
    • It could only have been after he was promoted to brigadier general in June 1942 and before he was killed in January 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:03_walker_macarthur.jpg: two issues with this. First, if it was taken in Papua New Guinea why does the copyright status in Australia matter? Second, per the template instructions, "please provide information of where the image was first published and who created it."
    • The picture was privately held. A great deal is known about circumstances surrounding the the picture, as it is from MacArthur's visit to Port Moresby in October 1942. It is part of a series of photographs taken by C. Bottomley, an official photographer. Papua was an Australia territory at the time. Because it was taken before 1955, it is in the public domain in Australia.
  • File:Ken_Walker_at_his_headquarters.jpg: if this is "in the field", how could it be "created in Australia"? What is "OWI-979-ZC"? In what year was this picture taken?
  • File:Knwalker-gravesite-photo-august-2006.jpg: since the stone is 3D, the photo has a copyright distinct from that of the stone. Which - the stone or the photo - is covered by the existing licensing tag, and what is the status of whichever is not thus licensed?
    • The copyright notice refers to the stone, which is a work of the US government. It was taken by Russell C. Jacobs in August 2006. I don't know what the American rules are for copyright over a photograph of something that is in the public domain. I have removed it from the article for now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:COMMAND_PILOT_WINGS.png has insufficient source information
    • A Wikipedian claims to have created it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but a) the description doesn't say that, only the file history does, and b) presumably the Wikipedian in question didn't design the original medal but copied it from a (PD-US Army?) design, in which case he/she would not be the sole copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Heinkel_He_111_during_the_Battle_of_Britain.jpg: according to this site, a license is required to use this image on a website. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take it up with the WWII project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you mean WT:WWII, that's just a redirect to WT:MIL, I can post the question there if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This must have come up before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm pretty sure The_Ed17 has answered this question before actually, I'll ask him to look. Sorry, I'm pretty useless with copyright questions, I can't seem to stop my eyes from glazing over ... - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's okay. The pic was taken before 1957, hence crown copyright has expired and it is in the public domain in the United Kingdom. The disclaimer on the site is photographs taken more recently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict) Crown copyright means that all photographs taken by the government before 1957 are in the public domain. The IWM's site (sorry, there's no direct link) says that this photograph is an "official photograph", which leads me to believe that this is the case. As for the "need" for a license, the IWM doesn't particularly like people using their images without permission even if they are in the public domain, that's all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Was it actually under crown copyright, though? I would argue that terming it an "official photograph" is not sufficient proof that it was taken by the UK government. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please reduce wiki links. Here is a problematic excerpt:
The family moved to Denver, Colorado, where Kenneth attended the Maria Mitchell School from 1905 to 1908, the Columbian School in Omaha, Nebraska, from 1908 to 1912, and Central High School in Kansas City, Missouri.
  • And recommended resolution:
The family moved to Denver, Colorado, where Kenneth attended the Maria Mitchell School from 1905 to 1908, the Columbian School in Omaha, Nebraska, from 1908 to 1912, and Central High School in Kansas City, Missouri.
  • If any reader is interested in more information about Kansas City they'll find it with Central High School etc. Overall I see wikilinked terms done multiple times throughout the article. How many links are required for Army ranks and the AAC or common terms like "single-mother"? Brad (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reduced the number of links. Kept the place names so they are consistent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok now. I just went through the article with a shotgun. Repetitive linking removed as well as more common terms like headstone and reprimand. Brad (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remarks

Disagree, along with all the other reviewers who have responded to the same comment in other reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - I realize that there are only so many ways to word certain things, but it's important to avoid overly close paraphrasing. Here are some examples:

  • "Walker returned to the United States in February 1925 and became a member of the Air Service Board at Langley Field. He stayed at Langley until 1928, serving as adjutant of the 59th Service Squadron, commander of the 11th Bombardment Squadron, and operations officer of the 2nd Bomb Group. He graduated from the Air Corps Tactical School at Langley Field in June 1929." vs "He returned to the United States in February 1925 as a member of the Air Service Board at Langley Field, Va. He stayed at Langley until 1928, having been adjutant of the 59th Service Squadron, commander of the 11th Bomb Squadron, and operations officer for the 2nd Bomb Group. He graduated from the Air Corps Tactical School at Langley Field in June 1929."
  • "Walker and his colleagues presented arguments to support a separate air organization, not subordinate to other military branches" vs "He and his colleagues presented arguments to support a separate air organization, not subordinate to other military branches."
  • "Walker and five other Air Corps Tactical School instructors were invited to testify on the military aspects of aviation before the Howell Commission" vs "Walker and five other Air Corps Tactical School instructors were invited to testify on the military aspects of aviation before the Howell Commission"

I only checked one source and found enough close paraphrasing to concern me. I would strongly recommend that the article be carefully checked from top to bottom to ensure that overly close paraphrasing is avoided. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The original article was a cut-and-paste of the Air Force bio. I rewrote it from top to bottom but left the original in place so people could still read the article. I have gone over all the refs to the bio and double-checked and verified that there is no close paraphrasing, re-wording some bits as appropriate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the current image issues (see WT:FAC) I suggest that all commentary about the images (see above) should be included on the image file. A careful close paraphrasing check is still needed, and Hawkeye, I have frequently had to remove excess links from your noms-- stop doing that :) :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Been adding commentary about the images as we've gone along. Really should learn how to do it before nominating, but still learning stuff about American copyright law. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is going to complete paraphrasing check and update image review here SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queried some image issues above; those left unqueried can be considered resolved. I did the original one-source check, haven't rechecked or looked at other sources - I can if need be, but the article might benefit more from fresh eyes there. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Befuddled on images-- lots of questions and answers, but where do we stand vis-a-vis policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two outstanding issues from a policy standpoint - the queries related to File:Heinkel_He_111_during_the_Battle_of_Britain.jpg and File:COMMAND_PILOT_WINGS.png. The other issue remaining above is less vital. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of the first one, the Crown asserts that it held the copyright on the photograph, and therefore that it is now in the public domain since it was taken before 1957. In the case of the second, it is a Wikipedian's free image of an object that is in the public domain, being created by the US Army. I cannot see any line of reasoning that leads to a conclusion that it is not in the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the second, it likely is in the public domain - but you actually need to say that, and include the appropriate template, on the image page. For the first, where does the Crown assert that? "Official photograph" is not a sufficient assertion, as it doesn't say "official government photograph", the author is unknown, etc. Sorry to harp on this, but it needs to be dealt with. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't say "official government " in the United Kingdom; that would be a tautology, because official literally means government. As for the wings, I have added a template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are still a few prose issues that need to be sorted out:

Lead
  • "This set resulted in a doctrinal clash ...". What set?
Early life and World War I
  • "His father left when Kenneth was young, and Emma raised him as a single mother." She didn't raise him as a single mother, she was the single mother.
Between the wars
  • "In 1937 Walker was involved in yet another accident occurred in 1937 ...".
Air War Plans Division
  • "Brigadier General Carl Andrew Spaatz was head of the division and two of his assistants were Lieutenant Colonels Olds and Muir S. Fairchild ...". Run-on sentence.
  • "Walker was also promoted to temporary lieutenant colonel on 15 July 1941." Why "also"?
  • ... and joined Air War Plans Division ... to replace Spaatz as head of the Air War Plans Division". Why "the" in one instance but not the other?
  • "The Air War Plans Division was tasked with developing a production requirements plan for President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who wanted an answer by 10 September 1941." An answer to what? What was the question?
  • "Together they created AWPD-1 plan". Who is "together" referring to? The previous sentence speaks of the Air War Plans Division, so who were they working with?
Papuan Campaign
  • "... the bombers were generally based in the Townsville area and staged through Port Moresby in order to minimise their chance of loss or damage on the ground." The article generally seems to be using American English spelling, so shouldn't this be "minimize"? Why "in order to" rather than just "to"? That "so" should probably be "therefore" or similar.
Legacy
  • "The based was inactivated on 2 July 1965".

Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for dealing with those issues Hawkeye. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing issues still found. Some examples:

  • "Walker was one of six Air Corps Tactical School instructors invited to testify on the military aspects of aviation before the Howell Commission on Federal Aviation" vs "Walker and four other ACTS instructors were invited to testify on the military aspects of aviation before the Presidents Commission on Federal Aviation" - also, seems to be a number discrepancy here
  • "Walker and his colleagues presented arguments to support an independent air force, not subordinate to the Army or Navy" vs "He and his colleagues presented arguments to support a separate air organization, not subordinate to other military branches"
  • "Together they created AWPD-1 plan, a blueprint for the imminent air war against Germany" vs "Walker and his team created AWPD-1 plan, the blueprint for the upcoming war against Germany". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They now read:

  • "In November 1934, Walker, now a student at the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, testified on the military aspects of aviation before the Howell Commission on Federal Aviation, along with Robert Olds, Claire Chennault, Donald Wilson, Harold George and Robert Webster. All were current or former instructors at the Air Corps Tactical School, and except Chennault were part of the Bomber Mafia."
  • "They argued for an independent air force, but were unable to persuade the Commission, although it did agree that the Air Corps should be granted an unprecedented degree of autonomy within the Army."
  • "In just nine days in August 1941, George, Olds, Faichild, Walker, Kuter and Hansell drafted the AWPD-1 plan for a war against Germany."

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  1. "Walker was born in Los Cerrillos, New Mexico, on 17 July 1898 to Wallace Walker and his wife Emma née Overturf." Possibly move comma from before "on" to before "to"?
    I've been asking non-Americans for feedback on this and not getting much. I don't know what other style guides say, but all the influential American style guides require a comma after New Mexico; I have a list of some of them at WT:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk)
  2. "The family moved to Denver, Colorado, where Kenneth attended the Maria Mitchell School from 1905 to 1908, the Columbian School in Omaha, Nebraska, from 1908 to 1912, and Central High School in Kansas City, Missouri." Theme presented inconsistently in this list. Did they move from Denver to Omaha to Kansas City, too, or did they stay in Denver and send him to board?
  3. "commenced a course"—I'd use "started"; but you are implying he didn't finish it.
    • Attempted to re-word the whole section to make it less awkward. It's still just a list of schools. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "He remained there for four years"—he remained at Fort Sill or at Post Field?
    • Its really much the same place, but we'll go with Post Field. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Already a command pilot, he qualified as a combat observer as well in 1922."—I'd remove "as well".
  6. "Walker became one of many officers holding wartime commissions to receive a commission in the Regular Army as a first lieutenant on 1 July 1920,"—an awful lot received that commission on 1 July that year?
  7. "Walker became part of a small clique of Air Corps Tactical School instructors that became known as the "Bomber Mafia", whose members also included Haywood Hansell, Donald Wilson, Harold L. George, and Robert M. Webster, which argued that bombardment was the most important form of airpower."—Consider "... Mafia; its members included ...".
  8. "He felt that it was flawed because it failed to drive home what he saw as the most important fact, namely that ...". A comma rather than the semicolon that follows this might be smoother.
  9. Suggestion to reduce the "thats": "two fundamental principles: bombardment should take the form of daylight precision bombing; and that it should be directed against critical industrial targets."
  10. "In an his article entitled "Driving home the bombardment attack", which was published in the Coast Artillery Journal in October 1930, ...".
  11. Try to drop "that" where possible, as here: "any damage that they might attempt to inflict".
    • Where's User:Dank? He doesn't like the "that"s being removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought a "that" was needed in one place in another article. Carol Saller (who does Chicago's monthly Q&A) mentions in The Subversive Copyeditor that, apparently to save space, American newspapers are removing "that" too aggressively in her view. I agree with Tony here; I like this sentence better without the "that". - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed it. I just wanted to avoid being asked to put it back in again. The Australian Style Guide calls for aggressive removal, so to me it seems more like reverting back to standard English. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This sentence seems not to flow in its paragraph: "They argued for an independent air force, but were unable to persuade the Commission, although it did agree that the Air Corps should be granted an unprecedented degree of autonomy within the Army.[16]" It's a major major point—in fact, this guy had a significant impact on US military practice, especially the emphasis on air attack, right?
    • Yes, that's right. Added words to this effect to the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be an FA, but needs further fine-tuning to the prose. I only got to half-way through "Between the wars". Tony (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye, thanks for fixing, but there's the rest of the article too, which I don't have time to scrutinise. Is there an independent copy-editor around? I must say, the amount of time this has been on the nom list is a concern: it suggests the nom should have been better prepared. Tony (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2011 (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/Kenneth_Walker/archive1&oldid=1078802159"