Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Willie Gillis

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.

Willie Gillis[edit]

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This character is an interesting part of Military history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Support - A few comments before I can support. --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at ease with article's prose structure at all - some important information is either missing or skimmed while other, less important information is given prominence. For example, putting "Rockwell did produce depictions of Gillis that were not on the cover." as the second to last sentence is pointless - You have to explain at the top (both in the lead and in the first section of the main body) exactly when and where Willie Gillis appeared - the article only discusses the covers, only to tell us right at the end that there were more pictures - how many and what were they?
  • I do not have information on the extent of this characters usage outside of post covers. I happened to stumble upon one image used elsewhere.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In Willie Gillis: Food Package Gillis' 1941 debut, he toted a care package" - Firstly, and this is true of a number of places in the article . . . so what? Secondly, this paragraph looks like it would work much better as the start of this section or the end of the last one, not thrown in at the end here.
The lead is very poor. At the moment, it is a loosely connected assortment of random facts that fail to introduce the article. These facts should be appropriately incorporated in the text below and replaced with a proper lead, which explains:
At the moment this is completely lacking and makes and already slightly confused article even harder to understand.
The article has hugely improved and is far more coherent, good work. I'm still a little concerned however that without some discussion of the use of Gillis illustrations inside the magazine, this article is incomplete. I also have some supplementary comments: --Jackyd101 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have researched the Gillis series as exhaustively as I can. I have found some more facts which have been or will be added to the text. However, I have no further content regarding inside depictions of Gillis. Extensive review of Rockwell art otherwise belongs elsewhere on WP, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rockwell illustrated American life during World War I and World War II in 34 of his cover illustrations,[2] and he illustrated 33 Post covers during World War II." - Does this mean that he only illustrated one cover during world war one? Its a little unclear.
    • I assume other artists occaissionally earned the Post cover in WWII giving him only 33. However, they were not all about American life, I guess. Suppose he did 17 WWI and 17 WWII Amerian life covers. This means he did 16 WWII covers about subjects other than American life. This is possible isn't it? Do you want me to change the text?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying but I think you have to explain this more clearly in the text itself: "and he illustrated 33 Post covers in total during World War II".--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence on this issue and a host of information that I found while researching your issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adoption of the goal of the Four Freedoms in keeping with United States President Franklin Roosevelt's 1941 State of the Union Address" - Are you saying that Rockwell influenced Roosevelt, or was influenced by him?
  • "Some of the Willie Gillis paintings and the Rosie the Riveter painting were raffled off during the United States Department of the Treasury's Second War Loan Drive" - Date?
  • ""We know that things ended well for Gillis, though" - this quote has no end, close it off with a quote mark.

I'm happy to support now, although I think that the sentence "Rockwell illustrated American life during World War I and World War II in 34 of his cover illustrations,[2] and he illustrated 33 Post covers during World War II" still needs "and he illustrated 33 Post covers in total during World War II" to clarify it further.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support Mostly minor issues that should be easy to fix, but they do impair readability enough that they should be fixed before I support it.
  • Disambiguate the link to G.I..
  • "In Willie Gillis: Food Package Gillis' 1941 debut" Huh? I think I understand what you're trying to say, but it's hard. Perhaps add a comma?
  • "at church in uniform, holding his cover on his lap;" What is "his cover"? Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but is it supposed to mean the cover of the magazine, or something else?
  • "least one depictions" Should be singular.
  • "During the first 16 days of the fair, through Saturday September 28, the attendance was 1,052,511.[31]" What fair?
  • " the subsequent 11 inches (280 mm)" Capitalize the first letter of the sentence.
– Joe Nutter 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good now. – Joe Nutter 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Image issues mainly.
  • How do you justify the use of 11 non-free images in the top right infobox? The individual covers are not really discussed in the text, and they all have three word FU rationales. They need some justifcation or they should be removed.
  • Is this resolved yet? If so, the review can be closed. --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images do now have detailed rationales. Whether those rationales will stand up to scrutiny at FAC is another question. They could reasonably, though not definitively, be said to fulfil the WP:NFCC. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Buck only stood 5 ft 4 in (1.63 m)." That sentence needs completing.
  • Could you split the last paragraph into a new section. It doesn't really come under the heading "models".
  • Other than the image issues, it meets all the A-Class criteria I think. The prose reads well to me and it is quite an interesting character that I hadn't heard of before. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with Comment A disambiguation check shows four links that need to be located and fixed, if at all possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have dabbed three of the four. South Seas is ambiguous to me. Maybe a MilHist buff knows which one is accurate from the source or can find another source with clarification.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:22, 25 January 2009 (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/Willie_Gillis&oldid=1138359510"