Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Army/archive1

History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army

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

• Featured article candidates/History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army/archive1

Nominator(s): Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a relatively unknown, yet fairly important office of the United States Army. After a GA review from Gog the Mild, an A-class review from Peacemaker67, Dumelow, and Zawed, I feel this meets the criteria. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review - pass

I carried out the source review for ACR (and assessed the article at GAN) and deliberately pitched it at FAC level, sorry Eddie. Skimming the minor changes since then, I feel that I can simply repeat my summary from there:

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.

@FAC coordinators: Could you let me know if a first FAC spot check is required? I have done a couple, but not, IMO, sufficient for a first FA check. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Support by PM

I went over this article with a fine tooth comb at Milhist ACR, have looked at the minor changes since it was promoted, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

image review

• Suggest |upright=1 for all portraits

• File:Baron_Steuben_by_Peale,_1780.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Randolph_B._Marcy_-_Brady-Handy.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria: both changes done. tks! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

Shall look in again more thoroughly soon, but meanwhile the BrE "recognised" seems out of place in so American an article. Tim riley talk 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Tim riley: Done! Thanks! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Support. A few minor points, which don't affect my support:

• Lead. At first sight it seems very short – at 107 words – for an article of more than 3,000 words, but having read through the article I can't see what else could usefully be added to the lead. The MoS says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies," and I think this lead, though short, does that.
• "relatively unchanged" crops up three times in the article. "Relatively" seems to me an unsatisfactory, vague word here: relative to what?
• "de facto" is not italicised in our article on the term, and I doubt if it should be here.
• I paused for a bit about the bills in 1902 and 1903: the first originally proposed to abolish the Inspector General's Department and the second proposed to abolish the post of inspector general (and his department?) but no reason is mentioned. It would be relevant and interesting to say why the idea was mooted.

Few of the sources are especially recent, but the subject of the article does not strike one as needing particularly recent scholarship. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 11:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comments

As this is the nominator's first time at FAC, this will require a source spot-check for verifiability and close paraphrasing. Thanks for asking, Gog the Mild. --Laser brain (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

First FAC checks

• Paraphrasing already checked.

Cite spot checks:

• Cite 2 - tick.
• Cite 65 - there should be a comma after "p. 268". I struggle to see how some of the pages cited relate to the paragraph in question. Could you clarify? Specifically, but not necessarily only, pages 268, 295 and 309. (See also comment against cite 68, and the final sentence of my summary.)
  • Sure. 252 cites In the period after World War I, the inspectorate dealt with many problems, including complaints over misdirected mail, misconduct by soldiers and damage to civilian property 268 is unnecessary. 295 cites and Germany (until 1923). 309 cites Russia (until 1920), 313-14 cite the same year a plan to severely limit the Department's responsibilities was proposed. and 330, 1, and 2 cite By 1920, 33 officers were in the Office of the Inspector General, while 54 remained at camps or in the geographical departments. In 1915 the office had handled about 9,500 actions, while by 1921 it processed nearly 17,700.67.242.19.37 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Cite 38 - tick.
• Cite 16 - tick; tick.
• Cite 42 - tick.
• Cite 25 - reorder pages in numerical order.
• Cite 69 - specify page number(s)
• Cite 68 - this cites 20 pages to cover "By the mid 1930s the War Department inspectorate was averaging about sixty major investigations annually. The department became responsible for inspecting the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1933." It is probably possible to boil this down to two pages.

Nb, these are in addition to spot checks I carried out, but did not specifically record, at GAN, ACR and the ordinary FAC source review above. Actually I am impressed. Apart from a tendency to over-cover with Whiitehorne it is good.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m out of town until Tuesday. I’ll get to it then if that’s ok. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Whenever you can Eddie. No rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Dank

• This nomination page has the wrong title; the second "the" should be lowercase. When this page is promoted, I'll put the blurb review at the correct talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Dank see the note and cited page in the article -- it is actually the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army (hence the OTIG acronym). See their website. I'm not sure why P. S. Burton moved the pages.

This status was noted symbolically in 1924. General Helmick, along with several other department heads, was authorized to capitalize the word The in his title. A precedent for this practice was made in 1907, when General Ainsworth converted his office from Military Secretary back to Adjutant General. The general order directing this change specified that the word The would precede the title designation of the department head. Since then the heads of other similar departments periodically agitated for a similar distinction, achieving success in 1924. At this time General llelmick had the title of The Inspector General. Although the use of capitalization was restricted to the head of the department or agency, the office acronym reflected the change- for example, Helmick's office symbol changing from OIG to OTIG

— page 320

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it appears to be lowercased everywhere in Wikipedia other than this page title, or it was when I checked. I won't take a position on this. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to. The common and accepted usage is "The". Wikipedia should reflect this, even if it is going be a Canute-type task rolling back all of the Wikipedians who assume that they have found a typo. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Opposing until the capitalization of this page title, the article title, and the article's first sentence match each other. Again, I don't care which way you go, but it has to be consistent. Also, the first sentence isn't up to FAC standards; I can't think of a single Good Article or Featured Article that starts off by simply quoting an institution's opinion of itself, using promotional language. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• The lead is very short. I suggest expanding it to two paragraphs.
• "nearly abolished on several occasions". According to the main text it was abolished on several occasions and later reinstated
• "None of the European systems of inspecting worked well for the Continental Army, but elements from all three, particularly the British system, were incorporated." Why were they unsuitable and which elements were incorporated? The text below suggests an initial French influence, a manual written by a Prussian adopted until 1812 and thereafter wholly US ideas. How did British ideas come in? How long did the foreign influences last?
• I would mention that d'Arendt and von Steuben were both Prussian.
• "The duties of inspector general were performed by Abimael Y. Nicoll" Presumably after Pike's death, but you should say so.
• "to assume responsibility for technical proficiency inspections of the army's nuclear surety program worldwide". I am not clear what this means. Inspection of the adequacy of programs for preventing accidental or rogue launches of nucler weapons?
• "In 1961, instruction was delivered to Republic of Korea Army officers in Seoul, Korea, and to Nationalist Chinese Army officers in Taipei, Formosa." Is this worth mentioning? The British army gives instructions to officers of many foreign armies every year and presumably the same is true of the US army. (If it is mentioned it should be Taiwan, not Formosa.)
• The lead and foreign influences need expansion, but apart from these points the article seems to me close to FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)