Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William D. Leahy/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 April 2023 [1].

William D. Leahy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about William D. Leahy, who was America's most senior military officer during World War II, but probably the least well known of the seven five-star officers. Despite (or perhaps because of this) there is a fair bit of scholarship about him. He is the subject of four PhD theses used in the article. The article did well on DYK, and will probably be quite popular as TFA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]
  • Signalling intent to comment here Eddie891 Talk Work 13:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a full review yet, but per MOS:CITELEAD O'Brien's direct quote in the lead should probably have a cite with it, and in the body of the article the reader would presumably benefit from knowing who the first most powerful man in the world was. There's an implication that it's Roosevelt, but there are a number of other global leaders it could have been-- Eddie891 Talk Work 13:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Every other power in the world was 'reactive' to American decision making. As Leahy had more influence than anyone not named Roosevelt or Truman, he was even more powerful than leaders of other nations such as Winston Churchill or Joseph Stalin." (O'Brien, p. 3) On reflection, I have removed the quote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wisconsin Legislature in 1872," This reads confusingly because you just established that they were living in Iowa in 1875. How does Wisconsin fit in to the timeline?
  • "He had five brothers and a sister" Math is not my strong spot, but 5+1+1 = 7. What happened to the eighth child?
    Borneman says eight, but this must be an error. O'Brien lists them on p. 469 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his paternal grandparents having arrived in the United States in 1836" Why do you mention the paternal, but not maternal grandparents?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know which of Ashland's schools he attended?
    Source doesn't say, but I think it was the original Central High School. [3] A new high school opened in 1904. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a year for the nose break?
  • "but this required an appointment from his local Congressman, Thomas Lynch" Could his senator not have appointed him, or was there a reason this was no possible?
    A senator could have appointed him. Did not mean to imply this. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Down thru early life and education-- I'm not seeing anything major, don't be afraid to push back on any/all of these. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This was the only naval battle Leahy witnessed in person" I'm struggling to find this on p. 25 of the cited source, could you help me out?
    Wrong book. Should be Borneman. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although Leahy did not like their chances if the 4,500 Chinese troops in the vicinity joined the uprising, as they had in the Battle of Tientsin" this feels a little extraneous- is it worth including?
    Otherwise the reader may wonder about the need for guarding the city. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike most Americans, Leahy was appalled by American brutality and the widespread use of torture" My reading of Thomas is that he's only addressing the opinions of American officers/soldiers. Might be worth clarifying, adding another source, or telling me how wrong I am
    My reading is that he is way too generous. But you have a point. I think I could source this, but decided to delete the phrase. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whose older sister Mary was engaged to Albert P. Niblack, an officer of the Annapolis class of 1880 under whom Leahy had served" This also feels extraneous, I'd consider removing
    I think I included it to say how they became acquainted, but sure. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Louise subsequently convinced him to convert from Roman Catholicism" My reading of O'Brien is that while Leahy's family was Roman Catholic, he himself would not have identified as much-- specifically p. 26 "showed no interest in theology, the Bible, or religious doctrine." Maybe it would be better to somehow establish in the early life section (though I'm not convinced that it would fit there) that his family was Roman Catholic and just say "convert to Episcopalianism" here?
    • Interestingly, Thomas gets his religion wrong on p. 12, implying that Leahy was an Episcopalian while at the Naval Academy (nothing actionable about that here).
      I think it is fair to say, as O'Brien does, that it was more about Irish identity than any theological or doctrinal issue, although I can imagine fellow naval officers saying "Good career move". Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to add pp. 28 and 29 to the citation for the text "However, he was present for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. His family had to leave their house in the face of the resulting fires..."
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a change Leahy came to see as a wise one" What does this add?
    Emphasis that it was unwilling. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mayo and then his replacement, Rear Admiral William Fullam, was reassigned," I'd think you want to say 'were' reassigned if you're talking about both of them
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in charge of one of the Navy's most sensitive offices. In this role he was in charge of all officer assignments" so was he in charge of the whole office, or just officer assignments? If the first, the second would presumably not be necessary to state
    • Maybe say something like "leaving Leahy as de facto head of one of the Navy's most sensitive offices, overseeing all officer assignments"
      He acted in charge of the whole bureau, but I don't think most readers will realise what the bureau did. Re-worded to make this clearer, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Thomas cited is almost certainly Gerald Eustis Thomas, suggest authorlink
    Author-linked. Good one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Down through Banana Wars. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look so far-- I'll pick up after you've gotten the chance to go through Harry's below, no point in potentially duplicating. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leahy was given an additional $10 million" in addition to...?
    Elaborated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leahy was regarded as one" was regarded but is not anymore? regarded by who?
    Replaced this with a quote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roosevelt occupied the captain's cabin, and Leahy the one for an embarked admiral; Marshall, the next most senior officer, had the chief of staff's cabin. The President had his own mess, where he dined with Hopkins, Leahy, McIntire, and Roosevelt's aides, Rear Admiral Wilson Brown and Major General Edwin "Pa" Watson; the other senior officers took their meals with the ship's officers. " The details on where they lived and ate feels like too much detail for this article, especially considering that it was only eight days of his life.
    It was there just to illustrate the pecking order. nLeahy's biographers piush back on claims of marshall's imprtance. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hopkins was diagnosed with stomach cancer, and in December 1937, doctors removed three quarters of his stomach" I'd cut as unnecessary here
    I presume you mean the text and not Hopkins's stomach... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He married Louise Gill Macy in the Oval office on July 30, 1942. For a time she lived in the White House with Hopkins, but she prevailed on him to move out in December 1943. He was therefore no longer at Roosevelt's beck and call" I think this could be condensed to like one sentence. Why do we need to know all the details besides that he ended up moving out?
    Condensed to one sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could that blockquote from Truman be condensed dramatically? Three blockquotes in a row feels like a lot, and I think that adds the least value of the three, imo.
    It is the one that Leahy is most associated with. Removed the middle one instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "emphasis on the first use of nuclear weapons" Not sure what 'first use' means here
    Fortunately, there is an article on the subject, appropriately called No first use. Linked. (You'll no doubt be please to know that Joe Biden has reaffirmed America's long-standing commitment to being the first to use nuclear weapons Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • up to the lead: I don't think "An 1897 graduate of the Annapolis," is what you want to say
    Removed stray word. Another object lesson on the inadvisability of trimming text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's about it. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, mostly on prose, but I did check a number of statements with a copy of O'Brien and it largely lined up (no copyvio or made up facts to worry about, not that I thought there would be) and got the impression the article was in the right place in other aspects too. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing: Could you add a mention of Leahy's memoirs along the lines of "Although Leahy later wrote in his memoirs that [BRIEF QUOTE ABOUT THE BOMB] ...; historian Barton J. Bernstein noted that Leahy did not oppose its use at the time:"? I think this would be a nice balance between the block quote and entirely omitting it. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this would be a reasonable balance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Added. The historiography reveals a gap between the historians of the 1960s and 1970s, who had to rely on sometime self-serving and unreliable memoirs written and those of later decades who had access to primary documents. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Well done on another important article! Comments:

  • An 1897 graduate of the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland Location is not really relevant; it hasn't moved, and it would still be the US Naval Academy if it was in Nebraska. If you really want to keep Annaopolis, you could pipe it to USNA but I don't think you need it in the lead.
    I think we've been through this before: the problem is that "Annapolis" is better known than "United States Naval Academy". Piped the former to the latter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leahy saw service in the Spanish–American War, the Philippine–American War, Boxer Rebellion in China, the Banana Wars and World War I I think you need a definite article before Boxer Rebellion (per all the other conflicts mentioned) and a serial comma before the "and".
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one paragraph, you have United States Naval Academy, United States Navy, and U.S. Ambassador to France. I'm aware that two of those are proper nouns, but I think we've well and truly established his nationality and you could afford to lose at least the last one. (I made an edit to this effect to the first paragraph)
    Deleted two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt just Roosevelt (or "the president"); you've introduced him above.
    Changed to "the President"
  • President is not a proper noun unless attached to a name; I'm tempted to say the same of "Chief of Staff"
    1 Corinthians 10:13 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More repetition of US in the third paragraph. It appears three times in a fairly short paragraph, none as part of a proper noun.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like a nice, concise lead but this one could do with a few more details: Why was his ambassadorship controversial? Some dates of battles/promotions/roles held pre-WWII would help to establish a career timeline. How, when, and why did he acquire a five-star rank? You say he was the de facto CJCS but the uninitiated reader might not realise that meant he was head of all the armed forces.
    Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leahy learned how to sail on a sailing ship Redundancy (he wouldn't have learnt it on a paddle steamer!)
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 2022, no other class had had more than four not sure that's not trivia; there probably weren't as many opportunities to most other generations given that the navy was in greater demand in the first half of the C20 than ever before or since.
    I think it is important. Obviously part of the reason was World War II, although when the are began there were only four 4-star admirals on active duty (Hart, Stark, Kimmel and King). Whereas today, with no war on, there are... eleven. The other part is the Navy's career policies. The Army equivalent would be the class of 1915 aka the class the stars fell on, which included Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley. But note that they were twenty years younger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was he before he was an ensign? A midshipman?
    Naval cadet. They didn't become midshipmen until 1902. (Already had to revert two IPs who wanted to edit the article without knowing what they are talking about.) They had to serve two years' sea duty before being commissioned as ensigns. They were not commissioned on graduation until 1912. It says this in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On August 28, the Castine was ordered to Amoy help protect American interests there against the possibility of a Japanese coup.[21] The Castine returned to the Philippines, arriving back in Manila on September 16, 1900 Maybe rephrase to avoid the impression that they returned to the Philippines because they were ordered to Amoy?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still an ensign, he was given his first command Possibly off-topic but was this common for an ensign?
    No, it was very unusual indeed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, he was present for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake "However" adds nothing here; it's not contradicting the previous statement
    The one that says he missed the birth of his son? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • United States occupation of Haiti, where Leahy again acted as chief of staff, this time to Rear Admiral William B. Caperton. In May 1916, Dolphin participated in the United States occupation of the Dominican Republic We can infer that these were US occupations
    I don't think these are well known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • with what was then a radical new design lose the "what was then" for timelessness
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who had been a critic of the U.S. Navy's gunnery
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But in the wake of the the "but" suggests a connection to the previous sentence but I don't see one.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leahy's old friend Franklin Roosevelt just Roosevelt again
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • along with cruisers with a total displacement of 60,000 long tons (61,000 t) and destroyers with a total displacement of 30,000 long tons (30,000 t) I think this is getting away from Leahy, the subject at hand
    Removed the tonnages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • joined his wife Louise
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel some of the detail on the development of Roosevelt Roads is getting off-topic
    Cut back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On February 1, 1941, Richardson was recalled and replaced as CINCUS by Admiral Husband Kimmel not seeing relevance to Leahy?
    It is about Leahy's dealing with Roosevelt, and how he rarely argued with him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fall of France in June 1940 came as a shock to many Americans;[96] Henry L. Stimson and McGeorge Bundy described it as "the most shocking single event of the war".[97] American security had been underwritten by Britain and France, allowing the United States to have a comparatively low amount of defense spending, and planning was based on the assumption that France would be a bulwark against Germany, as it had been in World War I, and that the United States would have ample time to mobilize industry and create armies. Now, with France gone, Germany could directly threaten the United States.[98] I know this is background to his appointment but it's diverging quite a long way from Leahy; can we shorten?
    Merged first two sentences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leahy sailed from Puerto Rico on November 28, and arrived in New York on December 2, from whence he immediately flew to Washington, D.C., to confer with Roosevelt Is his route really relevant? Surely it's enough just to say that he went to France via DC? Likewise the sentences about his journey from Norfolk to Vichy.
    Trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "My major task", Leahy later recalled "was to keep the French on our side in so far as possible This quote essentially duplicates the previous sentence.
  • The paragraph The United States had some levers... doesn't mention Leahy at all; I'm sure it could be condensed and merged with the following one, which focuses on Leahy's role.
    Condensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leahy regarded Hopkins as a "pinko" needs a citation, as both a direct quote and a red flag claim.

    I frequently joked with him about those days and sometimes called him “Pinko” or “Do-Gooder.” He took it all in good spirit and we never had any major differences of opinion. By his brilliant mind, his loyalty, and his selfless devotion to Franklin Roosevelt in helping carry on the war, Harry Hopkins soon erased completely any previous misgivings I might have held.

    — I Was There, p. 138
  • The extensive background on Hopkins isn't relevant; for a biography of Leahy, we should be content that Hopkins' health was the reason for Leahy's increasing influence. I would cull the paragraph after the precarious state of Hopkins's health.
    Cut back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • he accompanied President Roosevelt
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was unnecessary; the two commanders could have sent representatives... not relevant to Leahy
    Cut back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor did he agree with formalizing the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Do we know why?
    Yes. Added a bit more
  • at the age of eighty-four 84 per MOS:NUMERAL
    MOS:NUMERAL: Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need the dates of rank section? It entirely duplicates the prose? And if we must have it, do we need a picture of every rank insignia on every uniform? None of that seems encyclopaedic. I would say the same about the decorations (a Navy Cross for a voyage when he didn't even come into direct contact with the enemy, really?) but I know these enjoy consensus (though I can't fathom why).
    I am very fond of the dates of rank section, as I am often looking up an article to determine what rank someone held on a particular date. I didn't add it though; it has been in the article since 2006. Originally it was a list; it was changed to the current format in 2007. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a long list bust most of it is fairly straightforward. I also made a few copy edits as I went through. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there. The changes so far are great. There are still segments where I feel we're getting away from Leahy. This wouldn't be a big deal in a short article but this is a fairly lengthy one (8,200 words excluding block quotes and we've lost ~400 words since the start of the FAC).

  • The "levers" paragraph now starts with Leahy, which is very much an improvement, but then doesn't mention him again; a biography of Leahy should focus on Leahy's role in events.
    Trimmed this a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the detail about the Fall of France could still be consolidated (though this is also much improved to focus better on Leahy). Likewise, the stuff about Richardson as CINCUS is getting away from Leahy; all that's needed is that Richardson argued and Leahy agreed but wouldn't press FDR.
    Trimmed this a bit. We're relying on the reader having the background knowledge to appreciate that a military disaster was in the making. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lengthy block quote from Truman's memoirs doesn't add much and only mentions Leahy in passing.
    Cut this back too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expect I'll support once those three quibbles are sorted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker for when Harry's finished. - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Early life
  • Any date for the photo caption?
    I believe that it is part of a series of graduation photos taken in 1896. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arthur J. Hepburn, Orin G. Murfin and Harry E. Yarnell": you have a serial comma in the lead ("the Banana Wars, and World War I") but not one here and not lower down ("Edwin C. Johnson, Claude Pepper and Sam Rayburn"). I'm not sure whether you're including them or not, but best to be consistent throughout
    Deleted the first comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chief of Naval Operations
  • "Roosevelt won the election with a landslide victory,[72] and on November 10, 1936, it was announced that he would succeed Standley": So Roosevelt succeed Standley?
    Changed "he" to "Leahy". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Governor of Puerto Rico

That's it from me – very scant fare! It's engaging written piece on a very interesting life. – SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ErnestKrause

[edit]
Descendants of William D. Leahy and the occupants of Leahy House (including Rear Admiral Kurt W. Tidd (in blue shirt)) gather for the renaming of the house in honor of Fleet Admiral William Leahy in 2014.
  • Regarding the opening phrase in the lede: "...the most senior United States military officer on active duty during World War II." Should this be qualified in some way, since he was ambassador to France and Governor of Puerto Rico when the calendar started on WWII in 1939? Its only in 1942 that he is on the WWII scene.
    I think "during World War II" works. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The received version of this history, even for those who had read books about WWII, is that Eisenhower was in charge of Europe, MacArthur was in charge of the Pacific theatre, with Marshall coordinating in DC. If Leahy did have the ear of the president during this period, then it seems to have been somewhat muted. Should the article make more plain the extent and reach of his influence with the president, and in his relative importance next to Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Marshall? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The received version of this history is incomplete rather than incorrect. The article makes it plain that Leahy was senior to the other Joint Chiefs. "Leahy served as the de facto chairman... He considered that this was due to his seniority and not by virtue of his position." And that this meant things like "Roosevelt occupied the captain's cabin, and Leahy the one for an embarked admiral." It also notes how when Roosevelt could only take one military advisor, it was Leahy that he took. The article notes that Leahy saw Roosevelt every day. How much influence he had (and how you would measure it) is debated by historians, but on the rare occasions when it came to the crunch, it was Leahy who won out. The article notes this. During the opening of Leahy house in 2014 (right) Rear Admiral Kurt W. Tidd observed that "When you ask people to name all the five-star naval officers, they get [Chester] Nimitz, they get [Ernest] King, they get Bull Halsey. Almost nobody thinks about Fleet Admiral Leahy." Of course he was talking to naval officers, who most likely had read books about WWII; I doubt if members of the general public could name any of them. When this article was run on DYK in 2022, I got comments like Talk:William D. Leahy#Why have I never heard of him? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm supporting for the prose in this article; my thought is that its worth adding something on the A-bomb use on his watch into the lede section. Its a topical issue now with Putin doing so much sabre rattling in Ukraine. (Separately, regarding your source check for Madison, then I think Cmguy has answered everything there and awaiting a final word from you for support/oppose). ErnestKrause (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Cite 39: I think you have your page numbers wrong. (99-100?)
    Oh dear. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section header "Banana Wars", why the upper-case W?
    MOS:MILTERMS: "Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources". And it is. eg. [4] It is capitalised in our article and category. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 194: any reason why it is used twice when it is the only citation in the paragraph.
    I think I was going to split the paragraph, then reconsidered. Removed the first reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you note, four PhDs theses are referenced. As WP:SCHOLARSHIP in WP:RS notes, PhD these "can be used but care should be exercised ... Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not." In each case, what makes these four reliable sources? In particular, what makes each of them high quality sources? And any comments on the (fifty-year-old) age of two of them?
    All are from reputable universities, and all have undergone review by three external academic reviewers. What set me looking for theses was this review of Adams's 1985 book which criticised him for not referencing Miles. I obtained Miles's thesis, which was not submitted until 1999. It was supposed to appear as a book in 2000, but never did as far as I know. He became a lecturer on military history at Princeton University. That led me to the other PhDs. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1c: "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The article mostly draws upon O'Brien's more recent book though. Holmes (1974) was the best available source for the Vichy period, for I would otherwise have had to turn to Langer (1947); but while I was working on the article, Neiberg (2021) became available, and I incorporated it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable, for the citations for which they used. 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. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. I can find no problems with the formatting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Alt text would be nice, especially for the images with less descriptive captions (File:NH 91537 William D. Leahy as a naval cadet.jpg, File:Puerto Rico 1939, Gov. Leahy (8365155978).jpg; what are the planes we are seeing?)
  • Military images are fine as PD. Harris & Ewing collecting is ok. Things from Navy Museum/Flickr are OK as PD. Yalta image is fine.
  • File:Puerto Rico 1939, Gov. Leahy (8365155978).jpg: why PD?
    Marked on Flickr as "no known copyright restrictions". The image was taken by Robert Yarnall Richie, a commercial photographer, and later donated to the DeGolyer Library, which uploaded it. This is one of six images of Leahy in this series which the library has made available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't determine the source for File:USS Leahy (CG-16) underway in the Pacific Ocean on 1 June 1986 (6417014).jpg
    The supplied link [5] works for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason I did not see that first time round.
  • Captions are not consistent in whether they end with a period. or not
    Yes, that is right. MOS:CAPTION: "Most captions are not complete sentences but merely sentence fragments which should not end with a period. However, if any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then every sentence and every sentence fragment in that caption should end with a period." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they are not consistently following that rule. "Leahy shakes hands with Admiral Joseph M. Reeves (left) on assuming command of the Battle Force in June 1936" is a complete sentence, for example. So is "Leahy pays a farewell call on French Chief of State Marshal Philippe Pétain on April 27, 1942". There are several captions that list people, and sometimes the list ends with a period, sometimes it does not, independent of whether there has been a complete sentence earlier. Compare the captions of File:World War II Joint Chiefs of Staff 1943.jpg and File:80-G-K-13824 U.S.-British Combined Chiefs of Staff.jpg, for example. "USS Leahy underway in the Pacific Ocean in June 1986." is not a complete sentence. This list of inconsistencies is not complete. —Kusma (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other captions need copyediting/fixing, for example "Appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington, D.C., on March 22, 1939, in support of military aid Latin American Republics." is garbled
    Corrected this one Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I think; caption/alt text work would be especially helpful. —Kusma (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye, can you attend pls? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Somehow it dropped off my watch list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything except for getting the dots right in the captions is OK now. —Kusma (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-worked some of the captions. Should be okay now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed one more period that you may have overlooked. We could argue whether the presence of "are" in "behind them are (left to right)" gives us a complete sentence that should end with a period, but I think this is a pass now. —Kusma (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_D._Leahy/archive1&oldid=1150754413"