Wikipedia:Peer review/Military history of Asian Americans/archive1

Military history of Asian Americans

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am seeking to make edits in order to prepare this article for good article assessment. A new, or multiple, sets of editor may see edits that are required, including (but not limited to) expansions and contractors of sections of the article, in order to meet the criteria as set forth by GA.

Thank you in advance for your efforts, RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Would look to expand the lead considerably. It's intended to summarise the whole article, per WP:LEAD.
• No image for the lead?
• Consider paring down the table of contents to just third-level headings.
• Not sure, but do we always capitalise "Century" for century?
• General remark, lots of small paragraphs, reads a bit choppy, may be (may be) okay for GA but seek to improve the flow and general style of the article.
• Havana harbor-> Havana Harbor.
• Montagnard is a dab link.
• U.S.S. -> USS.
• Sergeant Major -> Sergeant major
• "Filipino Cadets being " Cadets->cadets?
• "Japanese Americans" seems that this should be hyphenated or en-dashed.
• "It wouldn't be until" avoid contractions -> "It would not be until..."
• " who was posthumously..." just think you need a link to posthumous here.
• "12[56] to 20 thousand,[57] " so somewhere between 12 people and 20 thousand? Minor rephrase required.
• " the Philippines found itself on the front lines of" doubt it "found itself" there. Be active in tone, not passive. Tell me how it happened.
• "that ended in 1910." 1910 is a bit of an Easter egg link, why not just say what happened and link it?
• "Ahn family portrait." no period required.
• Take a look at WP:DASH, should "Chinese American" be "Chinese-American" or "Chinese–American" or something else?
• Many images left and right, take care not to squash text between them.
• Check image captions, those which aren't complete sentences shouldn't have a period.
• Big see also/previous section of links. Can you be more refined?
• Don't SHOUT in the refs.
• Check for those links tagged as dead.
• The templates usually go below the External links section.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Response (part 1)

I'll see about working on a summarization, but I can use some suggestions.

I have not added an image for the lead, as since the Asian American grouping is so diverse, I have not found an image that is as unifying as the one listed for the 21st Century. To use a single image would favor one ethnicity over another, and may give one ethnicity undue preference.

Decapitalized century, see here.

Capitalized harbor, see here.

United States Ship appears to state the proper abbreviation is U.S.S., I have made the change, see here.

Sergeant Major is a title and are rightfully capitalized. I have decapitalized cadets, per the manual of style found Army writing standard here, see change here.

Japanese and Chinese American are generally not hyphenated in Academic Sources, and thus I have kept with that and not used the hyphen here. This goes back to a renaming attempt/controversy of the Chinese American, Japanese American, and other Asian American articles.

Removed contractions, see here.

I have reformatted the sentence which I believe is being referred to above; see change here. Please let me know if other sentences need to be reformatted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Response (part 2)

Fixed sentence as suggested, see change here.

Reformatted sentence, see change here.

Reformatted sentence, see change here.

Removed period, see change here.

Presently the images change from left to right, however that is not necessary. Would other editors suggest that all images be right aligned, or is alternating alignment OK?

Removed periods from sentence narration, see change here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Response (part 3)

Refined See also list, see change here.

Removed dead link references, see change here.

Moved templates below external link, see change here.

Removed significant capitalization in references, see change here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly a silly question, but as someone not familiar with the usage of the term, what (or who?) is an Asian American? An immigrant? An immigrant who naturalises? Someone born to immigrant parents? Someone who self-identifies as such? The article on Asian Americans provides a definition in its lead, but this article ought to provide some sort of definition, if only so a reader can tell what the article will cover. Also, surprised to see no mention of Japanese American internment. --IxK85 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The definition used is that at the lead of Asian American and is based on the definition used by the United States Census Bureau. I will be working on the lead later to summarize the article, and I can see why repeating the Asian American definition maybe necessary, if not a little redundant.

As for the Japanese American internment. I tried to focus on military history, and not on the situations surrounding it. If so I would need to write about the internment that occured on CONUS and the lack thereof on Hawaii. As this is an article that is about military history, I can see how it could be included, however I don't believe that it falls under the scope of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:REDUNDANT relates to the creation of new articles, not the content of existing articles. I would disagree that Japanese American internment is outside the scope of this article; for comparison, the article on Japanese-American service in World War II references internment in its opening sentence, while the article on the 442nd Infantry Regiment (United States) refers to internment in its third sentence. Military history strikes me as indivisible from the histories of the societies from which armed forces are recruited. It seems a stretch to imply, as this article currently does, that the recruitment of some Japanese Americans was separate to the internment of other Japanese Americans. The case of Sadao Munemori, who is specifically identified in this article, seems a case in point. -- IxK85 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, and the Japanese American internment during World War II is important to the history of Japanese Americans, however I am of the opinion that it is outside of the scope of the article. If we are to talk about the events surrounding the service of Asian Americans, than it would expand into the racism experienced by early Asian Americans and how it effected their service in the armed forces, which would expand this article greatly.

As a compromise I can see integrating something like the following:

Replace the statement:

The other members of the 442nd RCT were Japanese Americans from the continental United States and mostly White officers.

With the following:

The other members of the 442nd RCT were formerly interned Japanese Americans from the continental United States and mostly White officers.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It would appear we disagree as regards scope; I would still suggest that the internment issue is relevant to the raising and combat performance of those Japanese American units, and mentioning how the internment issue interacted with recruitment (if only briefly, as the article on Japanese American service can deal with the details) is of considerable value to the reader. That said, your compromise seems reasonable, though I would render the internal link as:

The other members of the 442nd RCT were formerly interned Japanese Americans...

so as to make obvious that the internal link is to 'Japanese American internment' and not to 'internment' more generally. -- IxK85 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Change enacted, see difference here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: good work so far. I have the following suggestions:
  • agree with the above regarding the table of contents, as it currently creates a large amount of whitespace (if you use a TOC limiter e.g. "{{TOC limit|3}} ", it would reduce this space);
  • by convention, ship names are usually presented in italics: e.g. USS Maine;
  • repetition: "however the first recorded history of Asian Americans fighting on behalf of the United States was recorded as far back as 1815" (recorded and recorded: perhaps reword);
  • "however the first recorded history of Asian Americans fighting on behalf of the United States was recorded as far back as 1815". I suggest adding a link to the conflict that this occurred in for context here;
  • irregular capitalisation: "U.S. Warships" --> "U.S. warships" as it doesn't seem like a proper noun;
  • irregular capitalisation: "Medal of Honor, and As of March 2011" --> "Medal of Honor, and as of March 2011";
  • please review this quote and tweak as necessary (there a couple of repeated words and examples of irregular capitalisation. As it is a quote, I didn't want to tweak it in case these are actually part of the quote): "Gordon Chung-Hoon, a Hawaiian-born Chinese American and a 1934 U.S. Naval Academy Asian first the graduate, was the first Asian was graduate, American to command a Navy (DD 502). Sigsbee warship, USS caused attack When a kamikaze attack caused kamikaze a When explosions and flooding on board the destroyer, Chung-Hoon directed damage control, enabling the crew to save the ship. his for Cross Navy Awarded Awarded the Navy Cross for his the actions, he was later promoted to rear admiral, making him the officer flag American first first Asian American flag officer Asian ";
  • I am probably not qualified to comment on content, but to me it seems that the Gulf War and 21st century sections seem quite underdeveloped when compared to the earlier sections. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Response

I added TOC limit, see change here.

Italicized ship names, see change here.

Reworded, as suggested; see change here. If additional rewording is required, I am more than happy to take suggestions.

Decapitalized warships, see change here.

Fixed irregular capitalization, see change here.

Fixed the quote regarding Rear Admiral Chung-Hoon, see change here.

As for the minimal content for the 21st century, due to WP:VER & WP:RS, I couldn't find significant amount of content for this section. What content I could find was included. Hopefully as historians start to write about this recent past there will be some who focus on Asian American contributions which will allow this section to expand. Is this content OK for inclusion in an attempt to elevate the article to GA?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Additional comments: Your changes above look good. I've taken another look and have some more suggestions:
  • reword: "He survived some of the bloodiest battles fought during the Civil War and is the highest known ranking (Corporal)[9] Chinese to serve in the Union Army" --> "He survived some of the bloodiest battles of the war and is believed to have achieved the highest rank of any Chinese to serve in the Union Army, having reached the rank of corporal";
  • reword to avoid repetition: "depths of the Great War, the U.S. was looking to its south; Mexico was in the depths of its Civil War, and violence began to spill North over the border" (depths and depths) --> "depths of the Great War, the U.S. was looking to its south; Mexico was in embroiled in a civil war, and violence began to spill North over the border";
  • this might need a citation if you are aiming for GA: "These graduates would lose their status as U.S. Nationals in 1935 and many would go on to serve the young Armed Forces of the Philippines."
  • "fifty-seven hundred" --> "5,700"
  • "U.S. Civilians" --> "U.S. civilians" (not a proper noun);
  • second comma needed: "July 26, 1862" (after 1862). There are also other examples throughout the article where this would be required if you agree, for instance "January 19, 1942" and "June 12, 1942" etc;
  • in the World War II section there are a couple of long paragraphs (e.g. in the Japanese Americans and Filipino Americans subsections. I wonder if these could be split to break up the text a little;
  • probably needs a citation for GA, as it appears uncited: "In 1948, President Truman ordered the desegregation of the United States Military";
  • capitalisation: "then being promoted to Major" --> "then being promoted to major" (per WP:MILTERMS as in this case it is not being used as a title);
  • capitalisation: "the 1st of the 31st infantry" --> "the 1st of the 31st Infantry";
  • I'm not sure that this is necessary: "fifty nine thousand (59,000)". I suggest just using "59,000". Same with "eighty two (82)";
  • "sixty five thousand" --> "65,000";
  • "except for 4 of these deaths" --> "except for four of these deaths";
  • if there is a way to do it, I'd suggest just merging the War of Terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq sections given the limited content. What is there is probably fine for GA if that is all that can be found;
  • I'm not a fan of the popular culture section (I'd suggest simply removing it because it is uncited and could be criticised for being cherrypicked), however, if you don't want to do that at a minimum I'd suggest removing the self ref from the section title. For instance "Military history of Asian Americans in popular culture' --> "In popular culture". AustralianRupert (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to Additional comments by AustralianRupert (part 1):

Change made regarding Joseph Pierce, see change here.

Change made regarding the Mexican Revolution, see change here.

Added reference as requested regarding loss of National status, see change here.

Changed to numbers, see change here.

Changed capitalization in the Interwar period section, see change here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• (NB: these might duplicate the above in places)
• The lead needs to be expanded to summarise the article more fully.
• "There are anecdotal accounts of Filipino American sailors serving as early as the Revolutionary War;[1] however the first recorded history of Asian Americans fighting on behalf of the United States occurred in 1815..." It's unclear here what the difference between an anecdotal account and a recorded event is (i.e. an anecdote can be recorded).
• "Joseph Pierce (his chosen name)..." Is he the John T. referred to in the previous para? If so, worth either explaining this, or starting with "Another Chinese-American soldier...".
• "unknowingly participated in" As put, this suggests that he didn't realise he was fighting in a war, which would seem unlikely.
• "highest known ranking (Corporal)[9] Chinese" - the brackets don't help this. How about "Being promoted to corporal, he was the highest known..."?
• The lead says that "Due to the small population of Asian Americans in the 19th century their contributions were not heavily recorded." - this isn't reflected in the main text at all. Indeed, one might also suspect that 19th century racism would have played apart here.
• "20th century" - lots of short, one paragraph sections here. I'd recommend combining them to allow for a more coherent narrative.
• "Early Asian American Military Academy graduates" section - this is written heavily in the conditional, e.g. "would do this... would do that...", and would probably read much better as "did this, did that". Applies throughout the article as well.
• "While the rest of the world was as in the depths of the Great War..." I'd specify the year. I'd also note that not all of the rest of the world were involved in the First World War.
• "Asian Americans were drafted as "non-whites" filling out the "white quota" into the National Army" - I wasn't sure what this meant.
• "For Europe this period ended in 1939, however for the United States it did not become an active and official, participant in combat until the attack on Pearl Harbor; 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;[46] on the other side of the Pacific Filipinos who were mobilized under U.S. command, since July 1941, prepared for an attack that would come nine hours later." - I'd examine this sentence closely, as it probably needs breaking up slightly.
• Japanese Americans sections. I'm not a specialist, but I think the "ancestry" bits may mask some pretty ugly racism at the time.
• "Additionally the Military Intelligence Service made a huge contribution to the war effort as it consisted of Japanese Americans" - didn't it have German speakers as well?
• "A quarter of those would serve in the U.S. Army Air Force with some finding their way to the Chinese Burma India theater with the 14th Air Service Group[60] and the Chinese-American Composite Wing.[61] Another 70 percent would go on to serve in the US Army in various units, including the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 32nd and 77th Infantry Divisions." - I wasn't sure if this quarter and 70% referred to the "75 percent (that) served in non-segregated units", or to all Chinese-Americans.
• "all Asian American segregated units became a thing of the past" - wording felt a bit informal
• "Yet, many stayed on and continued to serve in integrated units..." - The "yet" suggests that one would have expected them all to leave, which doesn't feel right. (Compare to whether we'd say "With the integration of the U.S. Armed Forces all-white units became a thing of the past. Yet, many white soldiers stayed on and continued to serve in integrated units..." - it would sound really odd.)
• "Cold War" section - again, lots of short paragraphs and one-paragraph sections, which make it harder to follow the thread of events.
• Check the consistency of whether you say "%" or "percent".
• Like others, I think the article needs to explain early on who Asian-Americans are for the non-US readership.
• Generally, I think the article needs to cover the literature on racism, Asian-Americans and the armed forces more comprehensively. It's not my specialist area, but a quick Google search on "racism asian-american military" shows a wealth of material relevant to the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to Hchc2009 (part 1)

I have made a section on the talk page to work towards an appropriate lead. Others are welcome to assist me here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)