Talk:School of Advanced Military Studies/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 18:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Yes, the prose has been thoroughly worked over in multiple content reviews and copy edited by the GOCE; the transitions are a little stilted in places but definitely acceptable for GA.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is very well referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I still have a few questions after reading the article, as listed in the comments, but still pretty good coverage of the topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes, no criticism of the subject is presented but no one seems to be criticizing it either.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Wow, this article has been heavily scrutinized! It's clearly benefitted from the attention though and it now meets the GA criteria. I am happy to close this review as pass. I've left some comments below as suggestions for further improvement. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• one of three United States Army schools that make up the United States Army Command and General Staff College - United States Army Command and General Staff College lists four schools; is this correct?

• You are correct, there are four schools. Casprings (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Infobox: Have you considered adding {{Infobox military unit}} to the article, like at United States Army Command and General Staff College and Joint Forces Staff College? If you don't want to do that, perhaps at least move the photo of the crest to the lead like at United States Army War College.

• I agree. I will add. Casprings (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Prose: In the first paragraph of the "history" section, it's not clear what following the Vietnam War refers to. It could mean either that there was a gap in U.S. military education following the Vietnam War or that the War College focused on grand strategy and national security policy following the Vietnam War, or perhaps both.

• The sentence is basically trying to say that it is filling a gap in the education. I see no reason for the mention of Vietnam.Casprings (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Coverage: Wass de Czege and two other U.S. Army officers planned and developed the school - who were these other two officers?

• The basic point was that he was the driving force. I think one can assume he didn't develop this alone. However, I see no reason to say he developed it with two officers. Just stating that he developed it is fine. Casprings (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• History: What was LTG Richardson's position at Fort Leavenworth? And can you provide his first name?

• Info added. Casprings (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• History: For the sake of context, why was the school regarded as a risky endeavour in its early years? Also, just to make sure we are offering balanced coverage, are there any who still criticize it?

• Because it took one year of time from their career(When they could be commanding) for a school of unknown worth. Will change some wordingCasprings (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• On second thought, I took that out. There is really no need to put in enough information to explain the trade offs in officer career timelines. Casprings (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• History: domestic contingencies, such as those in Los Angeles and Miami after Hurricane Katrina - I don't understand, what contingencies does this refer to?

  A reference to Defense Support of Civil authorities missions. Basically, DOD providing support to domestic authorities. Casprings (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Course and facilities - The quote box in this section is a little strange. It's not clear that von Schlieffen is the source of the quote and I'm not sure why The motto selected to describe the SAMS graduate is in quotation marks.

  I agree. Basically it was trying to convey sort of an unofficial motto. However, it is a bit strange there.

• Course and facilities - The second and third paragraphs seem a bit redundant - they contain overlapping information about the student body. Also, what are the "summer classes", and do they differ from the main program?

• Basically they take in two classes a year, a larger summer class and a smaller winter class. It is a reference to the start time of each course. I will edit those paragraphs some.

• Female students - Why is the line about the course being co-ed in the footnotes? If it is necessary at all, it should be in the article body.

• Agreed. Removed it.

• Citations - The citation style for the Bower references is inconsistent, The Lamp is italicized in one but not in the other.

• I have edited that several times in an attempt to fix it. If you could help, please do so.Casprings (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Curricula - In the future you might consider expanding the "Advanced Military Studies Program" section further, to make it the same length as the "Advanced Operation Art Studies Fellowship" section.

  I agree, that should be expanded some or combined.Casprings (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)