Talk:School of Advanced Military Studies/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Intothatdarkness (talk · contribs) 17:37, 9 October 2012 (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):
    Article is well-sourced and thoroughly linked (heavily in some spots, but not a deal-breaker to me). I did find the use of boxed quotes throughout to be somewhat distracting, and comment on them in point 4. Prose style is fair to good, although it does seem florid in spots and thin in others. In the History section an apostrophe seems to have been misplaced in the phrase "war college". In the linked History of SAMS article the reference is to "war colleges'", which encompasses the individual colleges of all the services, while in this article it becomes "college's", which implies only the Army's college. In looking further, it appears that this article is almost a carbon copy of the linked history article. It might be wise to incorporate the History section from that article here. Also, there are quite a few red links in the list of notable graduates. If they're red linked, more needs to be provided to demonstrate why they're notable.
Addressed the comments above save for the notable graduates. I red-linked them because someone may want to start an article on them. Three star general officer positions in the US army are limited by statute and require approval by the US Senate. I thought that was sufficient to be notable, so I limited the "notable graduates" list to three star generals and above. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Article draws on a reasonable variety of sources and doesn't look to contain OR or synthesis.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Again, this could benefit by merging information from History of SAMS article. More up-front discussion of where this program fits into the Army's professional education and development program might also be helpful for those who aren't familiar with the process. It's good to say that it "fills a gap" as is done in the History section, but further illustration of the structure of the system might be helpful. It's good in specifics, but needs a touch more information to address the broad coverage aspect, IMO.
I added some more context about Professional Military Education. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Para 3 of the lede could stand some adjusting. Right now it doesn't feel NPOV. This section "is both a training ground and a think tank for some of the Army's brightest officers. It provides its graduates with the skills necessary to deal with the disparate challenges encountered in contemporary military and government operations." would read better if either directly sourced or adjusted to read "The masters program focuses on providing graduates with the skills needed to deal with..." and then continue with the original text. The boxed quotes also distract from NPOV. In many other places the prose could be toned down a bit. The Course section contains lines like "Selection for this challenging program involves an application process which includes an examination, an interview, and a supervisor assessment." Since we've already established that SAMS is challenging, it might read better as "Program application includes an examination, and interview, and a supervisor assessment." Also, is this assessment based on officer performance reports or some other mechanism?
Changed lede, removed a box quote, toned down prose as noted. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Seems stable
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Good images
  3. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    A solid article on the whole. Some possible merging from the History of SAMS piece and trimming of NPOV items will go far toward improving the article. This is also my first GA review, so please feel free to seek advice from others who have more experience in this area. I'm sure I missed something somewhere. At this stage I'd say fail, but clearly more eyes would be a good thing.
Thanks for the comments! --Airborne84 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Failed so that other editors can review. Intothatdarkness 13:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed text/refs[edit]

  • From 'Contributions';

Lieutenant General David Huntoon stated in 2009 that SAMS "has established a corps of leaders, thinkers and planners who in the last two decades have reset the conditions for American military success”.[1]

  • From 'Advanced Operational Art Studies Fellowship ';

The AOASF is designed to graduate innovative risk takers willing to experiment," (2) "Exceptional commanders, schooled in the art of command, and leaders of campaign planning and strategic and operational design," (3) "Creative leaders who can solve complex-adaptive problems at the strategic and theater-strategic levels of conflict," (4) "Expert evaluators of the practical strategic and operational implications of cultural differences," and (5) "Masters at developing and mentoring junior officers."[2]

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)