Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James P. Hagerstrom

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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

James P. Hagerstrom

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): HueSatLum (talk)

Featured article candidates/James P. Hagerstrom/archive1

Hagerstrom was a fighter pilot with the USAAF and USAF, one of only seven to be an ace in both WWII and Korea. He also served in Vietnam, where he frequently butted heads with military brass. After retirement, he sailed around the Pacific with his family on a homemade boat. I created this article several years ago and got it to GA class, and since then I have expanded it quite a bit over the years. After a copyedit from the GOCE earlier this year, I believe it is now up to A-Class status, with the eventual goal of FAC. This is my first nomination, so I would appreciate any suggestions/critiques. /~hue sat lum/ 20:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, welcome to Milhist ACR. Thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"theatre" --> "theater" (US English)
- Done. /~hue sat lum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" July 25, 2944" --> " July 25, 1944"?
- D'oh, fixed. /~hue sat lum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"didn't" --> "did not"
- Done. /~hue sat lum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the following terms are overlinked: Tactical Air Command, Wiliam T. Whisner Jr., 8th Fighter Squadron, 49th Fighter Group, Fifth Air Force
- Delinked, except for Whisner. I think he deserves a second link because it is presented as part of a list of other people in a different context than the first mention. /~hue sat lum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the referencing is potentially inconsistent
- Could you elaborate? I don't understand. /~huesatlum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, sorry, I thought I'd written this, but it looks like I was more tired last night than I realised. Compare the style used for citation # 59 (and others) with those of # 60 and 62 (which also appear to be books). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I made 60 and 62 shortened footnotes and added the books to the bibliography. /~hue sat lum/ 00:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"at the pilot, not did..." --> "at the pilot, nor did"
- Done. /~hue sat lum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"because his gun was switched off" --> "because his guns were switched off"?
- Done. /~hue sat lum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Hagerstrom and the 8th FS were assigned to Kila Airfield": suggest adding when this took place
- The source doesn't have a date for this, but I clarified as best I could. /~hue sat lum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"he was wearing his dress blue uniform": is this level of detail necessary?
- I moved it down a few sentences to emphasize that he was still wearing his dress uniform when he flew his last mission. /~huesatlum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this phrasing seems a little awkward: "In part of 1968 and 1969..."
- Re-worked a few sentences so it flows better. /~hue sat lum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"There, he flew 30 combat missions": as a pilot, or in what capacity?
- This isn't specified in the source. /~huesatlum/ 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Hi HueSatLum, welcome to Milhist A-class. I started copyediting, but stopped at the quote boxes. I don't think it's my place to say whether they should be there and what they should say, but I'd like to see some discussion on them by more knowledgeable people before I continue. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Dank, and thanks for your work so far. My input: I added the quote boxes mainly for visual interest and to break up the wall of text. They essentially take the place of images, as extensive searches turned up no additional images of Hagerstrom that would definitely be allowed here. I believe they add more value than if they were replaced with generic images of, say, relevant battles or aircrafts. They provide a landing point for someone who is just skimming the article, as well as give insight into Hagerstrom's voice and point of view. /~huesatlum/ 02:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. For better and worse, FAC follows MOS (within reason), and WP:MOS says "Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged." There are strong opinions on both sides. It's not my fight, and I'm not sure how people feel about this at FAC these days. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Were you waiting for me to do something before you continued looking at the article, or do you want input from other folks first? /~huesatlum/ 15:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd like to see some discussion on the quote boxes by more knowledgeable people before I continue. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I doubt I'm more knowledgeable than you, Dan, but I'd be comfortable with the quote boxes, so long as the colour was removed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Heh, I don't doubt that. The quote boxes might be fine for A-class (not my call), but I'm a little worried that they'd set up a messy fight at FAC, and this one might be headed to FAC. Can you think of anyone we can ping who's up to speed on what FAC reviewers want from quote boxes? (and maybe that's you). I'm certainly not one of those guys who says you can't have them, but I know reviewers have ideas about what they should or shouldn't say. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Ian Rose, Peacemaker67, and Nikkimaria: G'day everyone, do you have an opinion about the use of quote boxes in this article? Would it be ok if the article went to FAC in your opinion, or would it be something that is likely frowned upon there? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, Template:Quote box discourages their use in articles, and MOS recommends using Template:Quote and really doesn't talk about quote boxes being used at all. Having a quick look through, the Vietnam quote is contradicted by a lot of sources regarding the use of airpower in that war (an example is the "force feed fire support system" explored in Firepower in Limited War by Robert Scales), so I think that might draw the crabs due to its content, unless the quote and criticism of that approach to airpower in Vietnam is explored in the body. In that case, I think it is better to leave it out. The other quotes would probably be ok as block quotes if it is felt they enhance the article. I don't think using quote boxes in lieu of images is a good practice though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Noted but can't respond properly just yet. Later, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        There are FAs that use quote boxes, and there are reviewers who have complained about their use. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_184 is the most recent major discussion I'm aware of on the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Back again... I'm responding here primarily as a frequent FAC nominator/reviewer rather than as a FAC coordinator. I took part in the discussion Nikki links above and expressed the opinion that quote boxes are appropriate when the quote in question doesn't quite fit into the flow of text (in which case a block quote would be logical). If you look at the summing up of that discussion I think you'll find that it wasn't a minority opinion. I've successfully nominated several articles at FAC with a quote box or two before and after that discussion and had no issues raised. Putting my FAC coord hat back on, I don't think I've noticed concerns raised in other nominations either. My advice would be to use quote boxes judiciously, as with any other style element. I wouldn't be using colour backgrounds though -- plain background is less obviously eye-catching, and one of the arguments against the quote boxes was that they highlight certain passages in the article to too great an extent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you all for your input. I have made the quote boxes the default light gray background and removed the Vietnam quote, per the suggestions above. I'd like to leave the rest in, although I would be willing to reconsider if it is brought up again here or at FAC. /~hue sat lum/ 03:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Dan. Just wanted to check if you were supporting here before I go out to the project asking for another reviewer. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM, but I'm working on a big project for TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ian

Since I was pinged for my thoughts on the quote boxes, and I felt compelled to tweak the lead a little at the same time, I may as well undertake a full review...

Prose-wise, pls feel free to challenge me on my copyediting, including my tweaks to subheadings -- obviously I think it's improved things but it doesn't mean I'm necessarily wed to particular phrasing. Outstanding points:
- Thank you for the thorough copyedit! I'm good with all of your changes. /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Infobox: Having written several article on Australia's air war in Korea, I hadn't formed the opinion that Mig Alley was analogous to a campaign, simply a region, so I don't know that it belongs here.
  - No strong opinions either way, this was just something I got from several other FAs. /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- He was the third son of Hagerstrom and Hazel Hagerstrom. -- any reason we can't compress this to Edward and Hazel Hagerstrom?
  - Done, that was left over from an old edit. /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- the 4th and 51st Fighter-Interceptor Wings were the only units equipped with F-86 Sabres, but Hagerstrom and some other members of the 18th FBW were able to fly these aircraft -- can we explain how jets operated by "only" two units were flown by pilots from another unit?
  - I don't have access to one of the sources right now, but I clarified it from what I remember. /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- the first of which Hagerstrom "shot the daylights out of" -- are these Hagerstrom's words?
  - Yes. I couldn't find a way to add something like "in his words" without sounding clunky, though. /~huesatlum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - We do need to attribute things though, especially if you're considering FAC next (which would be reasonable IMO) -- I gave it a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hagerstrom was survived by his wife and six of his children -- do we know how and when the other two children died?
  - The direct source doesn't say, and I don't recall seeing this in other sources. I will keep my eyes open though. /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Structure-wise it seems to work well and logically -- I think I tweaked one header level but that was it.
- I'm curious as to why you made "After Korea" a level 3 header but kept "Between wars" at level 4? I think they're fairly analogous and should be both the same level. /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Content/detail:
- It is very detailed, perhaps somewhat more than might be expected, but checking at least one of the sources I can see you've made a decent effort to summarise the available material and not simply report everything that's been written about the guy. I was particularly interested in the paragraph on his preparations for Korea, well worth including IMO.
- I'm not a fan of ribbon images in WP articles, IMO such graphic displays don't belong in an encyclopedia, but I'll grant that the community seems willing to accept them in US military bios.
Source review:
- Reliability-wise, no red flags are popping up; the books generally feature a mix of known authors and/or publishers, other sources are newspapers, government sites, and the Hall of Valor site that appears to have a board of editors and a solid vetting policy for submissions.
- Formatting-wise:
  - Densford: Publisher/location?
    - Added. /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hammel: Don't need page no. in Bibliography, you mention in citation.
    - Done. /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maurer: First name is really Maurer? Also "of" in title should be all lower case.
    - Yes, I asked the same question when I first saw the source. Fixed "of". /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Porter: Location?
    - Added. /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sherwood 1996: Location? Obviously I can guess but it should still be there...
    - I was following the advice of H:CS1, which says "The |location= parameter should be omitted when it is implied by the name of the work, e.g. The New York Times." /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sherwood 2000 and Werrell: Article titles should be title case or sentence but these two seem a mixture...
    - Fixed Werrell, but "On Guard over MiG Alley: The James P. Hagerstrom Story" seems fine for title case. /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd prefer to see someone like Nikkimaria conduct the image review if possible.

Nice work overall. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support following responses/actions re. the points above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:AF_Presidential_Unit_Citation_Ribbon.png: doesn't make sense for uploader to claim copyright, should be same USGov tag as the other ribbons
- Done. /~hue sat lum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Army_distinguished_service_cross_medal.png needs a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I added {{PD-USGov-Military award}} to the permission field, and I kept the PD-self tag because it is a derivative work. Let me know if that should go somewhere else or replace PD-self entirely. Thanks for the review, Nikki. /~huesatlum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nikkimaria: Reminder to take a look at this when you get a chance. /~hue sat lum/ 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - - that looks fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Kges1901

Excellent article, prose seems fine. Comments:

Hagerstrom was posted to Saigon, South Vietnam, to work for the Seventh Air Force. 'work' seems awkward since working in the contest of the Air Force tends to be used for civilians. Perhaps say "to serve with the Seventh Air Force"?
For the references, Newton/Senning and Maurer should use sfns like the other books and have full refs in the bibliography. Kges1901 (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Both done. Thanks, /~hue sat lum/ 14:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.