Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Eddie891 (talk)

History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it meets the criteria. After a GA review and further copy editing by Gog the Mild here I am. It's my first A-class nom, so sorry if it misses the mark a bit. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Source review by Gog the Mild - Pass[edit]

  • Minor point. When specifying pages there should always be a space after punctuation. Eg after the comma in cite 3; ditto cite 42.
  • Ingersoll is in the bibliography, but is not used as a reference. (Which is a pity, as it makes a number of useful points.) It should be deleted or moved to a new section called "Further reading".
  • Maginnis. Just '(1993)' for the date is fine.

The sources are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. The limited direct copying is of PD sources and is appropriately attributed. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

Gog the Mild (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Eddie891. That looks good. Apologies, but I have just realised that the bibliography isn't in alphabetical order. If you could change that, I think the source review is complete. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article seems in good shape. I have a few comments/queries:

  • Establishment seems a strange section header, as the establishment seems to be with the appointment of Conway. Perhaps this section should be headed "Antecedents"? Also in this section I was wondering if there were any British antecedents to the American post that could be mentioned.
  • Given it is a fresh section, I think "On October 29, Washington" begs the question "which year"?
  • I think adding the dates of each IG's tenure in parens after their name is a bit granular breaks up the flow too much. I suggest creating a separate section with a table listing all IGs with dates of tenure (and ranks if that is available), and just stating their date or year of appointment when they are introduced.
  • That was added during the GA review, as suggested by Gog the Mild: I don't really feel strongly either way. A table listing all IGs is here Eddie891 Talk Work 18:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steuben is named as a baron in the caption, but just as Friedrich in the body. Suggest giving him his full title in the body.
  • can the charter be summarised in the article? There is no explanation of the role at present.
  • with von's, it is usual to drop the von after their name is given in full. Thus Steuben rather than Von Steuben.
  • state who Knox was ie Secretary of War
  •  Done (removed, north was actually under knox before becoming full IG) Eddie891 Talk Work 18:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "appointed adjutant general and inspector general" for clarity, if that is what is meant, as it currently reads as if he was appointed adjutant and also inspector general. There are other instances of this.
  •  Done clarification added about the "adjutant and inspector general" being the position title. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note F would benefit from being integrated into the text
  • The sentence beginning "During the Mexican–American War..." seems out of place (and a long step chronologically). Suggest placing it after the first sentence of the next para.
  • "2 major generals, 7 brigadier generals"→"two major generals, seven brigadier generals" per MOS:NUMERAL

Down to Reorganization (1866–1903). More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • with the War Department order, something is missing, as the quote should flow from the preamble. I think the wording should be something like "the duties of inspector general as to inspect:"
  •  Done (Ended mine "to be" the same way Sanger did, might be a bit too 1890s though) Eddie891 Talk Work 18:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest expanding G. O. to General Order if that is what it is. There is also a comma after No. 5, and it should be a period with no space to the citation. Also should it be "of 1866."?
  • (unofficial) doesn't need parens
  • perhaps add what Chipman was?
  • "was formally accepted as existing" is a bit off. Perhaps "was formalised/authorised on the Army establishment" if that is accurate? Or just "was formalised/authorised"
  • "During the late 1800s" usually means 1806–1809 AFAIK. Perhaps "late 19th century" if that is what is meant?
  • suggest "disliked the inspectorate and in 1898 he nearly succeeded in removing the inspection districts and the independence of the department."
  • what is David Clary? a US Army historian? Add something similar about why his opinion is important.
  •  Done added historian. He's really one of the only historians who has written about the department. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "the inspector general collaborating"
  • again, what was Thomas Henry Barry?
  • again, what was Jacob M. Dickinson?
  • "Through those years, the inspector general" perhaps name Garlington here if he was the advocate?
  • "and the army was restructured"
  • "requesting that former inspectors come out of retirement" this could be an AmEng thing though.
  •  Done (it reads fine to me either way, so I'm fine with adding Eddie891 Talk Work 18:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The the inspectorate"
  • suggest "the inspectorate was allocated the additional responsibility"
  • The sentence beginning "The department inspected the finances..." needs a rewrite or some punctuation, I'm not sure which because the meaning is unclear to me.
  • who were the IGs between 1917 and 1930? So far we have had a pretty unbroken list.
  • They don't really fit smoothly into the prose, but I could add something that's just a list if you want. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Division (military)
  • "(largely because they were not being released quickly enough)" just needs a comma in front to drop the parens
  • after "The Office of The Inspector General" introduce the acronym OTIG in parens
  • "army atomic organizations" is this a type of unit structure like pentropic etc, or units that deployed atomic weapons? Clarify?
  • for General Order #40 I suggest General Order No. 40 to be consistent with other GOs earlier.
  • suggest "The revised AR 20-1 of March 1960..." And what is AR? Army Regulation? In full perhaps, as it is later? Also one AR has a hyphen and the later one has an ndash?
  • suggest "created 12 statutory cabinet-level inspector generals across a range of government departments outside the Department of Defense," if that is accurate?
  •  Done: you should probably make sure this reads how you intended. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became automated.." has an extra period.
  • "Inspector General Management Information Resource System (IGARS). IGMIRS..." has a bit been missed here, or has the acronym been mistyped?

That's me done on the primary review. Great job on this so far! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • sources all look high quality and reliable. I have a query about whether Ingersoll has anything important to say, and also if there is a post-1939 sister publication to go with Clary and Whitehorne? I couldn't find anything else of apparent value in a Google Books and Google Scholar search. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well 4 volumes were planned, but it seems that only two were ever published (as of now...). Definitely a shame.
  • Ingersoll talks extensively about the formation of the department, and how it was 'formally' accepted in the revised statutes, but I don't really think it's enough to merit adding more than what is already in the article. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peacemaker67: That about wraps it up. Most of your reccomendations have been incorporated ([9]) but I had a couple questions above. Thanks for reviewing! Eddie891 Talk Work 13:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great stuff. Just be aware that at FAC, not using Ingersoll might mean reviewers question the article's comprehensiveness. Even if you double cite a few things to Ingersoll, at least that will show you have consulted it. Also, I've tweaked the wording in one spot so it reads like a sentence. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Dumelow[edit]

Full disclosure: Eddie sought my comments for this review but it has been a long time since I had involvement with A-class articles so please don't place too much weight behind my opinions! Eddie: I have made a few minor edits to the article, please review and revert any you disagree with. I have a feeling many of them are my own stylistic preferences rather than MOS "must dos", as are most of my comments so again feel free to ignore them as you like:

  • The phrasing of "None of the European systems of inspecting fully worked for the Continental Army," seems a bit off to me (I think it is the "fully worked" bit, but it may be an ENGVAR thing)
  • In the second paragraph of the "Antecedents" section the phrase "Continental Army" is used three times in three sentences. Can an alternative be used to break it up a bit?
  • Is there a way to avoid mentioning "Boston" twice in quick succession in "After George Washington arrived in Boston to lead the Continental Army in the Siege of Boston, on July 4, 1775,"?
  • Can the second "1777" be omitted in: "Augustin de la Balme ... arrived in the United States in 1777, and on July 8, 1777"
  • "As the first inspector general to serve a significant term, he played a large role in defining the role of the position." - could an alternative were used for the first "role", maybe "part"?
  • Duplication of "responsibl..." in "Congress further clarified the responsibilities on September 25, 1780, making the office responsible for regulations of the army" maybe avoidable?
  • In the "Early history (1777–1865)" section the first image is left-aligned. I thought this was frowned upon but can't find any mention in the MOS so maybe it is just my personal preference.
Looks like it was removed from the MOS in June 2012 - told you I was out of practice! - Dumelow (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplication of "inspector general" in "North was made inspector general in 1784, and is known to have done little as inspector general", possible a way to avoid this with "... known to have done little in the role" or similar
  • The article states that on 25 June 1788 "the Office of Inspector of troops in the service of the United States [was to] immediately cease, and be discontinued" but the note following Stagg and Mentges states "(IG July 3, 1788 – 1792)", were these actual inspector generals or just de facto carrying out the role? It seems it was reintroduced in 1796? It is a bit confusing (for me at least) to have the IG in brackets after the names of those who were not actually appointed as IG.
  • John Gadsden has no IG brackets or dates after his name, is this intentional?
  • Is there a reason for the ordering of the countries in: "Inspectors were active in Germany (until 1923), France (until 1919) and Russia (until 1920)", perhaps reorder chronologically by ending date?
  • Maybe the current IG should be mentioned in the last sentence of the article?

- Dumelow (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eddie891. Happy to support. Think you may have missed my comment above re: John Gadsden? - Dumelow (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

A few things:

  • "...when Thomas Conway was appointed, and the department has been reorganized many times...": replace department with office for consistency.
  • More a suggestion since I see PM has already commented on it as but I wonder if "Background" may serve as a better heading than "Antecedents"? For FWIW, I also agree with PM's comment regarding having the tenure in brackets, it does affect the flow, particularly when it is mentioned in the text as well: e.g. "...until Joseph Cabell Breckinridge Sr. (IG January 30, 1889 – April 11, 1903) became the senior inspector general on January 30, 1889."
  • Changed to background again, no strong opinion, IG dated removed (easy to add back in if necessary) Eddie891 Talk Work 23:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph of the antecedents section feels like it should go with the early history section. The quote in the first sentence of the paragraph should be cited. And what happened to Coudray?
  • "The office was then vacant until...": feels like a better lead-in is necessary here. How about "Following North's [resignation/departure], the office was vacant until..."
  • "Smyth served in that position poorly.."; suggest rephrasing to "Smyth performed poorly in the role, to the point..."
  • " That same year, the Inspector General's Department was formally accepted as existing"; suggest rephrasing to "That same year, the Inspector General's Department was formally recognised..."
  • "...on March 10, 1792,...": the previous sentence recited an exact date as well so I find this occurrence a little jarring; could we not say "a few days later"
  • "Cushing, who served as acting inspector general.[35][6]": re-order cites here
  • Shouldn't Flynn & Griffin and Wait be listed in the bibliography section instead as being recited as a full note? Also McGinnis is listed in the bibliography but not Meredith? I think they are both periodicals.

That is it from me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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/History_of_the_Office_of_The_Inspector_General_of_the_United_States_Army&oldid=947019595"