Talk:History of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Army

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Gog the Mild:Noted, thanks for taking this on. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Hi. Before I settle down to the serious work, could you have a look at this report from Earwig. It shows a lot of word for word matching. The web site gives its references at the bottom, and they don't include Wikipedia. Has the Fort Knox web site lifted material from the article in the last two weeks, or has it gone the other way? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Gog the Mild The website is in the public domain, as all works of the United States Army are. Per the sites notice "Information presented on the Fort Knox Website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." [1]. Also see {{US Army}}. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Of course it is. And attributed. Apologies - my lack of familiarity with US military copyright rules. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Scope/title. The article doesn't seem to do what it says at the top. I was expecting an article which told me all about the current role of the OTIG, with perhaps a brief bit of history. What I see is a history of the OTIG from 1777 to 1986. It either needs a lot of additional work - and withdrawing from GAN while this is done - or a new title. I'll pause to let you come back to me on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• So I have two options: move to something like History of the Inspector General of the United States Army, and redirecting Inspector General of the United States Army to List of Inspectors General of the United States Army, and later adding a brief "history" and large "current role" section to Inspector General of the United States Army, and continuing the ga nom with the history page, or withdrawing and adding a long current role section then re nomming. I'll do the former if it is what you think should be done. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Fine. I am breaking for lunch, but I will get on with things shortly. It's up to you, but I would avoid the use of "list", the article contains quite a bit more than that. Maybe something like "History of the office of inspector general of the US Army"? (If it were me I would then consider a separate article on the role of the current OTIG; there will be overlap, but I think that the role is more than big enough to stand it.) Rereading your post, you may be ahead of me there. Anyway, you get the title changed and I'll get on with the assessment. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild I've gotten started on the other article (at Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army, but there's plenty of room for expansion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have done a little copy editing. Could you check it and flag up here anything you aren't happy with.
  • looks good
• "Inspector General" should not be capitalised, unless it is specifically used as part of an individual's title (Inspector General Conway) per MoS capitals. Similarly with "Chief of Staff" and other cases.
  • Done
• Could you give the dates of each inspector general's taking up and leaving office, usually immediately after their first mention in the role.
  •  Done
• "The newly formed department had one Inspector General, 8 inspectors general". There were really 9 officers with the same job title?
  • clarified
• "The duties of Inspector General were then performed by Abimael Y. Nicoll, then senior inspector, later John R. Bell and various assistant Adjutant Generals." I am a little confused by this sentence. Could the second part be rephrased?
  • done
• Could you italicise all uses of "de facto".
  • done
• "the office of Inspector General". You are inconsistent with your capitalisation of this phrase. The MoS would suggest, MOS:INSTITUTIONS, that it should always be upper case initials. (The 'Office of Inspector General'.)
  • Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

That was swift. Good work.

• I don't think that you are going to like this, but you have a mix of US and non-US dating conventions. As in " Philippe-Charles-Jean-Baptiste-Tronson Du Coudray (IG 11 August 1777 – 15 September 1777)[5] was similarly appointed to Inspector General of Ordnance and Military Stores on August 11, 1777." "11 August" and "August 11". Etc. You should only use one. And given that this is an article on an American topic it should be the US one; August 11, 1777.
  • changed with script.

• Good. I had forgotten about that script and thought that I had landed you with a big job. On a similar note, {{snd}} saves a few key strokes over {{Spaced en dash}}.

• I have copy edited the next section. See what you think.
  • Good
• The books in "Further reading" are missing ISBNs or OCLCs. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done: had to use lccn's and asin sometimes

• Fine.

• More copy editing. More than in the other sections. (Is this this where the Fort Knox stuff is? If so, your writing is better than theirs.)
  • Some of it, some is just carelessness (sorry:))
• "It peaked at 216 officers on November 12, 1918 (later rising to 248 in June 1919)". If it subsequently rose, 216 wasn't a peak.
  • done
• "The department became responsible for inspecting the Civilian Conservation Corps." Do we know when?
  • Added
• Sometimes you use "army", sometimes "Army". Could you look at MOS:INSTITUTIONS and pick one.
  • Done
• "The Inspector General (TIG)" Does the acronym really change from IG to TIG?
  • No
• Could you have a read through the "Later history" section (is it more from the Fort Knox site?), take out unnecessary detail, make the language a bit more encyclopedic, and tie it in with the previous prose. (On the last point, eg "The statutory basis for the current inspectorate system comes from the 1950 Army Reorganization Act" seems to me to be at least partially contradicted by "In 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization Act reversed the IG portion of the 1950 Army Reorganization Act".)
  • Think I adequately took out unnecessary detail.
• Could the article be brought a bit more up to date than 1986, which is 32 years ago. If no, because nothing of note has happened, could you say so.
  • Done.
• Could you add a "Main Article" or similar towards the end linking to the article Office of the Inspector General of the United States Army.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• • Added link in beginning, basing off of History of Microsoft
• Gog the Mild: This might take me a few days, as I'm currently swamped with work in real life... I'll get back asap, but it might be as late as this weekend. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Eddie891: No worries. You have been very prompt with your responses to date. Take 10 days off if you wish. I won't query you for progress until the 22nd. (I may add some comments though as I continue to review.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild: How's it look now? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild: re pinging because I'm not sure the other one worked. Sorry if you got about 15 notifications. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. On holiday. back in a couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm back. Apologies for the delay. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• "The Secretary of War could shrink or increase the office by 15% without Congress passing a new law, so the department shrunk to 56 officers in June 1922 and to 40 in 1923. " A reduction from 56 to 40 is a 28.5% reduction in one year, which does not match with the first part of the sentence.
  • clarify
• I have made a couple of changes. Could you check them for me?
  • look good
• "In order to obtain better training for inspectors general"; "In 1952, the OTIG initiated an orientation course for officers selected to be Inspectors General". You need to decide whether it is I and G or i and g.
  • done (changed to i g)

Good work on "Later history". Nearly there I think.

• • thanks Gog the Mild. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Given the amount of work which has gone on as part of the assessment, I will leave this for a day or two and then go through the whole thing with fresh eyes. There probably isn't anything else to do, but I don't want to let any howlers through because I was over-focused. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You have a fine article there. Passing as GA. Good work and well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed