Talk:Lewis Strauss/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 19:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar

• As a result Strauss has often been regarded as a villain in American history. Comma after "result"
• but it took awhile for the situation "a while"
• The bill had considerable popular support but eventually failed comma before "but"
• Instead, in February 1941, he was called to active duty comma after "duty"
• Admiral Paul Frederick Foster, a longtime friend "long-time"
• With the 1958 United States Senate elections soon to happpen, "happen"
• Chevalier, Star of Roumania. "Romania"

Thanks very much for taking on the review. I have changed all of these except the last. I used 'Roumania' deliberately because that's what the referenced source uses and because that was the most common English spelling of the country during Strauss's early life and World War I. But if you feel strongly about it I'm okay with changing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Articles like this can wait in the queue for a long time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• "Writings" ("Works" or "Publications" is preferred - see MOS:BIB) comes before the "See also" section (MOS:LAYOUT)
• In the bibliography, author-link Barton Bernstein, Kai Bird, Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Martin J. Sherwin, Richard Rhodes and Ken Young

I have changed to 'Publications' for the section heading and fixed the order and I have added author links in the Bibliography. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Early life and education

• In his spare time, Strauss studied his Jewish heritage and formulated ideas about ways to lead life This is too vague; what kind of ideas are we talking about?

This is a recurring theme of the Pfau biography, but it's too hard to summarize for WP use, so I've removed that clause. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• One such contact he made was with attorney Harvey Hollister Bundy. This is Bundy's first and only appearance. (NB: Taft is duplicate linked below.)

I've added that this Bundy foiled Strauss's access during Manhattan Project information during WWII. And I have unlinked the later Taft mention. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Hoover spoke to Polish Prime Minister Ignacy Jan Paderewski and demanded a fair investigation, but it took awhile for the situation for Jews in Poland to (temporarily) improve. This is widshy-washy at best. To me, you are missing the best piece from the source: . To them, Strauss averred, all Jews were Bolshevists, and all Bolshevists Jews. More importantly, I cannot find the text in the source supporting the assertion of improvement.

I have reworked this text and have included the quote you suggested (since I can't tell if it was a direct quote of Strauss, I have done a tight paraphrase of it). As for the situation for Jews improving, it's on p. 389 of that source ("a subsiding of violence in Eastern Europe") and it's even more directly in Strauss's memoir, which I've also added as a cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Strauss had grown up in Virginia surrounded by Lost Cause romanticism about war, but a tour he took in summer 1918 to the devastated battlefields of Château-Thierry and Belleau Wood removed from his worldview any such glamorous notions Are we talking about the romanticism of war or the Lost cause? The evidence for the latter seems slim.

The very first paragraph of Strauss's memoir talks about growing up in Virginia surrounded by the history of the South and that he knew men who had fought with Lee and Stuart and Pickett. And when Strauss talks about the "War Between the States" he says things like "Conquered people cannot celebrate victory, but they compensate by venerating their heroes." This is what I was getting at, but I should have added the memoir to the citing, I now have. However the term 'Lost Cause', while at least somewhat related to what Strauss is describing, is freighted with additional meaning, so I have rephrased this text without the term. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

World War II

• link lieutenant (navy), lieutenant commander (United States), Commodore (United States), rear admiral (United States), Admiral (United States)

I have linked 'admiral' to a general discussion of the rank, have linked the rest as suggested. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

More to come... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Atomic Energy Commission

• Admiral Paul Frederick Foster Vice Admiral

Changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Other people in government and science, including Oppenheimer and Edward Teller Oppenheimer has not yet been introduced.

Now introduced and linked (first mention since lede). Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Link Republican Party (United States), Secretary of State for Defence

I have introduced and linked 'Republican Party' further up where Hoover's first presidential campaign is mentioned. Not sure what you mean by the other – Strachey was Secretary of State for War and that is linked. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Strauss and Oppenheimer

• Oppenheimer has already been mention, so no need to link or give name in full.

Changed accordingly. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• First sentence is unsourced, and is wrong; Oppenheimer had not been scientific director of the Manhattan Project. He had been the director of the Los Alamos Laboratory.

This was an issue from the existing article that I failed to catch. I have now corrected/expanded the identification of him and added sourcing. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppenheimer had seemingly left his Jewish heritage behind in exploring the Ethical Culture movement This was actually Oppenheimer's father who did this. Suggest omitting everything after "behind".

  The source I used specifically refers to Oppenheimer's own Ethical Culture training in this respect. However some other Oppenheimer biographies give it less or no emphasis in this context, so I have shortened it as you suggested. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppenheimer's secularism was certainly something that grated on Strauss, just as the fact that Edmund Herring went to Melbourne Grammar irritated Tubby Allen. However, this is about their upbringing; Oppenheimer attended the Ethical Culture Society School because that was his parents' choice, not his own. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Link National Security Council

Already linked earlier in the first AEC section in the Souers identification. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppenheimer had sat on the General Advisory Committee (GAC) of senior atomic scientists, which reported to the AEC Oppenheimer was the chairman of the GAC.

Another existing article issue that I didn't catch, now changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• only a month after Oppenheimer made his proclamation, in August 1953, the Soviet Union declared and U.S. sensors confirmed that it had tested its own fusion-based bomb. This is not correct; the Soviets tested a boosted fission weapon; they did not test a hydrogen bomb until 1955.

  The existing article had a flow-stopping, 140-word discussion here about the debate regarding what Joe-4 was and the relative progress towards a true and deliverable thermonuclear weapon. None of that is relevant here – all that matters in this context is that the Soviets made faster progress in thermonuclear development than Oppenheimer had predicted, thus giving those already suspicious of him one more thing to be suspicious about. So I chose 'fusion-based bomb' as an attempt at a term that could fit all interpretations of Joe-4. I guess I didn't succeed – do you have an alternate suggestion? Holloway Stalin and the Bomb pp 307–309 makes the case for Joe-4 being, both technically and in terms of political impact, more than a U.S.-style boosted fission weapon but less than a true thermonuclear one. That sounds about right to me, but how to get that across tersely? Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've had a go at this. The point here is that Oppenheimer was not so far wrong as the article first suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

• an image that would persist over the next several years, and then on beyond that. That's really awkward.

I have chopped this into two sentences. but I'm still trying to keep the citing in the right places. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Eisenhower's famous "blank wall" directive This should have been mentioned back in the Strauss and Oppenheimer section.

I didn't want to put it there because that section is not a full history of the Oppenheimer security affair but rather just a description of the interactions between Strauss and Oppenheimer, and it's not a given that Strauss was behind that directive. However I have dropped the 'famous' and reordered the text in the section where it's in to better describe its significance. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• He was said to have received a Gold Star—Navy in lieu of a second such award, and an Oak Leaf Cluster—Army in lieu of a third. I don't know what the "was said to have" is about; delete (and above with reference to the Legion of Honor). In fact, he received the Legion of Merit four times, not three times (the Infobox should note this with a (4) after the award). The first as noted was in November 1944; the Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster in September 1945; the Gold Star in April 1947; and a second Gold Star in September 1959. See [1] for his citations.

The "was said to have" is because I was using a senator's introduction of Strauss as published in the Congressional Record, which I didn't think was especially trustworthy. Thanks very much for the pointer to the Military Times valor database, I didn't know about that; I have changed/expanded the Legion of Merit text accordingly. Re the other award, I can't find an independent source for his having won the Legion of Honor; it might be in the French book, es Grand'Croix de la Légion d'honneur: De 1805 à nos jours, titulaires français et étrangers, but there aren't even snippets online and it would take a while to get via a library. So I attributed the Congressional Record in-text as the source for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Placing on hold. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I have now given responses here and made changes to the article for all the points you raised. Please let me know what you think and thanks again for the review. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is find. passing. One question in my mind: if Strauss was so close to Hoover, why did he never serve in the Hoover administration? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the pass. From the Pfau biography, I think Hoover tried to recruit him but Strauss was in the middle of earning his fortune on Wall Street and wanted to keep his momentum there and attain lifetime financial security. I looked in a number of Hoover biographies but none of them say (and some of them barely mention Strauss at all, so the closeness that Strauss felt may not have extended beyond friendship to government positions or policy matters). Wasted Time R (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: