Talk:Military history of Asian Americans/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting any issues here that I can't easily fix myself, and then go to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I won't be able to make it through the full article tonight, so here's some preliminary comments on the early sections. I hope to finish tomorrow. So far this article looks good in terms of completeness and depth of research, and I'm learning a lot reading it. So far my biggest concerns are with clarity in the prose. I've done some copyediting myself as I've gone along for both grammatical and stylistic reasons. Please double-check me to make sure I haven't inadvertently added any new errors, and please revert any changes you disagree with.

• "Asian Americans began to attend U.S. military academies and the first incidents that would lead to Asian Americans being awarded the Medal of Honor" -- to say that "Asian Americans began to attend ... the first incidents that would lead to Asian Americans being awarded the Medal of Honor" doesn't seem complete. Perhaps rewrite as "Asian Americans began to attend U.S. military academies, and the first Asian Americans were awarded the Medal of Honor"?
• [1] does not seem like a reliable source. I'd suggest simply removing the "Pierce's picture hangs in the Gettysburg Museum" as it seems a bit trivial anyway.
• "Pierce's, and other Asian-Pacific Islander soldiers of the Civil War, actions was the subject of a House of Representatives resolution" -- this sentence needs to be rewritten a bit for grammar, but I feel like this one could also use a little more context. Perhaps mention the year, the fact that it passed, and that the resolution was to honor them. "In 2007, the US House passed a resolution honoring the actions of Pierce and other..."
• "Asian Americans were drafted as "non-whites" filling out the "white quota" into the National Army" -- this confuses me--non-whites were used to fill the quota of whites?
• " they too would not see combat" -- who is "they" here--Asian Americans, or Asian, Hispanic and Native Americans? It also appears to contradict the next sentence. I wonder if it would be better to write "few of them would see combat".
• " Private Henry Chinn, who was killed in action in the Argonne Forest as part of the Lost Battalion,[54][55] and Sergeant Sing Kee, another member of the Lost Battalion, who earned the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions.[56][57] and Sergeant Major Tokutaro Nishimura Slocum, who fought in the 328th Infantry Regiment, 82d Infantry Division" -- this does not appear to be a complete sentence--right now it's a list of three nouns with long modifiers. There's also a period where a comma is probably wanted.
• "In the Navy, at its peak more than 5,700 Filipinos enlisted during World War I" -- what does "at its peak" mean here? Did 5,700 Filipinos enlist total during the war, or was there one "peak" day when 5,700 Filipinos enlisted?

First set of responses

I am surprised that you had to go through and do so much copy editing! Sorry. I had ran it through Microsoft Word twice per section, and thought it up to snuff. -sigh-

I would not be opposed to the rewarding proposed to the lead if you feel that it is more fluid.

The Gettysburg Discussion Group, is a non-profit organization whose focus is collecting information and providing education to visitors about the battle. They have been used as a source or highlighted in multiple books.

• Fair enough. It's a minor statement in any case.

I would not be opposed to the rewording proposed for the sentence regarding the 2007 House Resolution about Asian American service during the Civil War.

Regarding the World War I quota, yes, that confused me too as well, but the source is more clear. However presently the website for the Institute of Historical Research appears to be down. If you wish to strike that sentence, I would not be oppose to it (or comment it out).

• It would a shame to strike mention of the quota system, which seems quite relevant and important. Can other sources be found for this if the original source is down?

From what I can remember, the source indicated that non-white soldiers were not suppose to be assigned to combat units. However, a few did, and thus did see combat. I am not sure if those who did had voluntarily enlisted prior to the draft, or what their specific circumstances were. As for the "they too did not see combat", this is referring to the majority of the Asian American draftees, who did not see combat like the Philippine National Guard. As for it not being a complete sentence, it is actually suppose to be a list of those who I can verify did see combat.

• Got it. I think the version is clear now.

As for the Filipinos in the Navy question, the actual sources says "By 1917, there were some 2,000 Filipinos in the U.S. Navy, a number that would spike to over 5,700 by the war's end,..."

Would you suggest a rewording?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think what was throwing me was the word "enlisted", suggesting there was a point at which this many men enlisted all together, rather than were enlisted, if that distinction makes sense. I think the new wording is clear on this point.

Here are the changes I have made based on your first set of comments. I hope this remedies the issues that were brought up in the first round.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Great--I'll take a more detailed look in the morning. Sorry to see from your user page that you've got the flu, by the way! Hope you feel better soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm progressing towards being better. I am just happy I am not one with a severe case now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think that addresses the above, save for the quota issue. I'll continue working on this off and on throughout the day. I'm battling a longterm sinus infection of my own, so I think I'm stepping out to urgent care for antibiotics at some point! We'll see how I hold up, but I apologize in advance if this review moves slowly for a bit. Thanks again for your quick responses and your hard work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Starting a new section since most of the above is addressed, but see the note about quotas.

• " but not without some difficulty,[58] or overcoming legal obstacles." -- Are "difficulty or legal obstacles" alternatives here?
• "however, there is no record of Asian American service members earning accolades in the interwar period outside of the service academies" -- this needs citation to demonstrate that it's not original research.
• Broadly speaking, this article would be helped by adding some social context on racism and stereotypes toward, and legal status of, Asian Americans at various eras in US history; these are implied throughout the article but not often directly addressed. In the Japanese-Ams in WWII section, for example, 1-2 sentences clearly explaining the background of internment could be included. I don't think you'd need to go far outside of the sources that this article already uses to include this. The Salyer article has some good background of stereotypes and legal issues for Asian Americans in WWI-era America. The passage of the Nye-Lea bill as a result of Slocum's lobbying seems worth addressing specifically. [2][3] This source puts Filipino American service in the context of anti-Filipino laws.[4]
• "For Europe this period ended in 1939" -- what is "this period" here? The interwar? It's a bit of a non sequiter; maybe start a new paragraph here.
• "active" --what's going on with the four wikilinks hidden in one word here? Consider reworking this part per WP:EGG.
• "From that point on Asian Americans were on the front lines for the U.S. civilians of Oahu, including Japanese Americans, assisted with aid efforts following the attack" -- the "for" in this sentence confuses me--can you rephrase this for me here so I can understand its meaning? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing review

Though this article is developing well in many respects, it still seems to me far from meeting criterion 1a (clear and concise prose). I skipped ahead in the article to look at a fresh paragraph as an example.[5] The sort of persistent minor errors here included hyphenation (all-Nisei is a compound adjective), tense (" the two Nisei units combine"), redundancy ("combine together"), capitalization ("White officers"), and an unneeded article ("including the liberation of the Dachau"). The phrase "including the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp" should also be clarified--it's not clear what this is being "included" in. (The problem may be the intervening phrase "leading it to be one of the most decorated units in the European Theater"; perhaps this could be broken off into a separate sentence?) As a side note, the section also has a sourcing/minor POV issue in praising the "huge contribution" of the Military Intelligence Service while sourcing to a site that appears to be by veterans of the service (you might consider attributing this opinion in-text). I'm also concerned that a newsletter of the Japanese American Veterans Association might not meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources--we don't know its standards for fact-checking, and it's not impartial, which are two warning signs. I should emphasize that none of these are a big deal in themselves, and I feel a little petty even mentioning some of the above; the problem is simply the persistence of the issues.

What I'd recommend is submitting this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and getting a close edit before resubmitting; that should take care of the biggest issue here, which is the grammar and occasional odd syntax. You might also check in at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history to see if anyone there would be interested in helping. Less urgently, I'd suggest adding in some of the social context I mentioned above. Though I'm not listing it at this time, I think you've surely got enough for a Good Article here, and that this is well on its way--I'm very grateful for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)