Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Cadet Nurse Corps

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Cadet Nurse Corps[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk)

Cadet Nurse Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-class review on behalf of User:Pendright per their request on my talk page here: [1]. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the United States Cadet Nurse Corps program; how it alleviated the nursing shortage during World War II and influenced how nurses would be educated and trained in the post-war era. The U.S. Congress created the Corps in 1943; it was without military status although the legislative act required that it be a uniformed body. The U.S. government funded the program, but it was administered through 1,125-university nursing schools scattered around the U.S. – with oversight delegated to the U.S. Health Department. By the end of the war, student nurses were providing about 80 per cent of the nursing care in more than 1,000 civilian hospitals. The program operated from 1943 until 1948; graduating 124,065 cadets who became Registered Nurses (RN). The article was promoted to a GA in 2015, but has since been updated and rewrorked. It received a copyedit from the GOCE In September 2019. I welcome all comments. Pendright (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass[edit]

  • Two of the sources (Szecsy and Robinson) are self-published (WP:SPS) which mean that they probably aren't reliable. Szecsy's doctorate is in education and Robinson only has nursing qualifications, so I don't think that they would meet the exceptions for experts in the subject area (which would be history) See below
  • Other sources look OK
  • I found the following articles which might be useful. I have a PDF copy of both, so let me know if you'd like them.
    • Willever, H; Parascandola, J (1994). "The Cadet Nurse Corps, l943-48". Public Health Reports. 109 (3): 455–457. ISSN 0033-3549.
    • Kalisch, Beatrice J.; Kalisch, Philip A. (February 1976). "Nurses in American History The Cadet Nurse Corps - in World War II". AJN The American Journal of Nursing. 76 (2): 240. ISSN 0002-936X.
  • Source checks TBD buidhe 03:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: The CNC article is not about nursing science or practice; its about a U.S.government program that funded accredeited Schools of nursing (1,125 of them) to combat the shortage of nurses that existed in the country during WWII.

Thelma M. Robinson and her sister, Pauline Perry, were both cadet nurses who earned their nursing degrees through the U.S. Cadet Nurse Corps program during World War II. As career civilian nurses, Robinson held the nursing credentials of RN, MSN, PNP, while Perry's credentials include AD, RN, PHN.
In addition to their personal experiences, the sources used in their publications are what you would expect from life-long nursing professionals.
  • RN = Registered Nurse
  • MSN = Master of Science in Nursing
  • PNP = Pedeatric Nursing Practiciner
  • AD = Admission and Discharge
  • PHN = Public Health Nurse
Incidently, Elsie M. Szecys is the daughter of a cadet nurse. Her contributions to the article do not touch on Nursing science or parctice - but rather on general information. Her publication is well sourced; consistent with someone from the field of education who understands the importance of references.
Thank you for locating the sourcs lsted. For my part, I think what needs to be said about the CNC has been pretty much said using the current references. Thanks for the reviews. Pendright (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postscript:
The primary source for all who write about the Cadet Nurse Corps is eventually the United States Public Health Service, the organization that was responsible for its operations. Most, if not all, who write about the corps will have USPHS as a source. This includes the works of both Robinson and Szecsy.
As a graduate of the cadet nurse program and a life-long Registered Nurse, how can Robinson not be considered an expert in her field?
In addition to the publication in question, Szecsy has also written 'The Cadet Nurse Corps in Arizona", published in 2016 by The History Press. She earned her doctorate at Columbia University and is emeritus research professional at Arizona State University.
While Wikipedia holds that self-publishing can be suspect; it does not close the door on its use.
The educational and professional backgrounds of these women are the exception and not the rule and they should have standing. Pendright (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Robinson is a graduate of the program, and also published a book on the subject, I think her work would pass the criteria for WP:SPS. Szecy might likewise slide by because her other book The Cadet Nurse Corps in Arizona was published by an actual publisher. buidhe 10:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Pass : No problems with images or licenses. buidhe 03:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments

Per WP:NOTLYRICS, we shouldn't include the full lyrics of the song, especially if they're copyrighted. buidhe 10:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hymn was a gift to the CNC, a federal program, to celebrate its second anniversary. Because its ownership is or was vested with the U.S., I presumed it to be in the public domain. Pendright (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Pendright, I hope you are well. I have fixed a couple of typos and adjusted the dashes: [2] and also have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • the program seems to have ended when the final cohort graduated. Is that correct? I'm not sure if this is made explicit, although it is implied
Changed as follows: The CNC program began on 1 July 1943 and ended with the last group of graduating students on 31 December 1948 ... Pendright (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the National League of Nursing Education is overlinked in the Creation of the program section
Removed link - Pendright (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest linking registered nurse in the lead
Linked - Pendright (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • uniforms, and a stipend: move the link for stipend to its first mention (the previous paragraph)
The first mention of stipend I was able to locate is under Creation of the Program, where stipend is already linked. What have I missed? - Pendright (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved this for you now with this edit: [3] AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • showed President Roosevelt signing: full name on first mention
Changed per above - Pendright (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • one worn by the British general Montgomery --> "one worn by the British officer, General Bernard Montgomery": adjust the link and display the full name, and add a capital "G" for "General" as it was his actual rank (its a title, not just a job office) and it precedes his actual name. I note the advice given on the talk page in September, but it is incorrect in my opinion, I'm sorry. The first bullet point at the link provided on the talk page says "When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon". Further guidance in support of capitalization here is "When preceding a person's name as a title, begin such words with a capital letter" per this). MOS:MILTERMS also provides guidance here: "Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general."
Changed per above, thanks for the explanation - Pendright (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review. If any of my responses are unsatisfactory, let me know. Regards! Pendright (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I made a couple of minor tweaks, but otherwise it looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your tweaking. FYI – A comma after JR. has been, in American English, traditionally used. In the 1990s, however, the Chicago Manual of Style, a well-respected American style guide, decided it was no longer needed and dropped it. Although, it still is widely used. Pendright (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I have done a little copy editing, which you will wish to check.

Thank you for the copy editing - Pendright (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the initial sentence not start with 'The'?
Added the definite article - Pendright (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "a nondiscriminatory program"?
Now reads: The United States (U.S.) Cadet Nurse Corps (CNC) was authorized by the U.S. Congress and signed into law in July 1943; a program that prohibited discrimination based upon race, color, or creed. Pendright (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few media sources lacked advertising for the CNC" I am not sure that presenting this fact as the absence of a negative makes for the most accessible text.
Now reads: Nearly every type of media source advertised for the CNC. Pendright (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were obligated to provide the students with the clinical experiences of" Is the second "the" necessary?
Removed - Pendright (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and without discrimination" You have just written that it was only open to women; what am I/a reader missing?
Now reads:The CNC was the largest of the federal nurse-training programs; it allowed young women to serve their country in uniform while being protected by law against discrimination. Pendright (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nurses could not be trained quickly enough to keep pace with the civilian and military populations." I am not sure what this means. Is there a more explanatory way of phrasing it?
Now reads: Nurses could not be trained quickly enough to keep pace with the country’s civilian and military needs. Pendright (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a stipend of $30.00 for all senior cadet nurses" What is a "a senior cadet nurse", as opposed to a plain cadet nurse? [I see that it is explained later. Possibly insert a brief footnote here?]
Added a note of explanation - Pendright (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the prewar buildup of the military and industrial upturn that followed." Optional: "followed" → 'this caused' or similar.
Substituted "this caused" Pendright (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the excellent explanation in the "Housing" section, I am not sure that note 1 is necessary.
Deleted - Pendright (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an unknown number of applications for building material, which were paid for by the nursing schools' own expansion" This doesn't seem, to me, to make sense. Who actually paid for the material?
The source information is just as muddled. Since it is really nonessential information, I’ve deleted it. Pendright (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the high-school graduate but college women" Possibly a note explaining what high-school and college are for non-North American readers?
Both linked to apprpriate explanations - Pendright (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reward Unlimited was awarded the best recruitment film for 1944" I suspect that this is American English phraseology. Perhaps 'Reward Unlimited was awarded a prize [is it known which one?] as the best recruitment film for 1944' or 'Reward Unlimited was recognised as the best recruitment film for 1944 by XXX'?
Changed, after reviewing the source, to: Reward Unlimited received awards for the best recruitment film for 1944 - nothing further is noted -Pendright (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "requiring them to serve in a federal or civilian hospital, where they provided the full-time service equivalent to that of a graduate nurse." This is a little convoluted. Is it the cadet or the hospital who provide "the full-time service equivalent"? And does "full-time service" add anything to the sentence?
I’ve reworked this, but made no changes to the text, see what you think?
The students became senior cadets in their last six months before graduation. This required them to serve in a federal or civilian hospital, where they provided the equivalent in services to that of a graduate nurse. Pendright (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest "the equivalent in services to that of" → 'the equivalent services to those of', but otherwise it reads fine to me.
<>Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the time World War II ended, student nurses were providing 80 per cent of the country's nursing care" But if "the CNC program began on 1 July 1943" and it was a 30 month course, then the first cadets would only graduate at the end of 1945, five months after the end of the war. Even allowing for the final six months in hospital, that would only be fewer than 50,000 senior cadets.
Cadet nurses section:
In the course of their training, cadet nurses served in Army and Navy hospitals, with the Indian Health Service, with the Veterans' Administration, and in Public Health hospitals. Pendright (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand this response.
<>My response to your comment was intended to demonstrate that cadet nurses, not graduate nurses, were providing the nursing services to the recipient hospitals/organizations during the course of their student-raining periods. The text in the article, as it stands, does not intend to say otherwise. But if you believe it does or is unclear, then any suggestions to clarify this are welcome. Pendright (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The claim in the article is not unclear. Rather I have difficulty believing it. Could you give the words from Robinson which support it? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Student nurses were supplying 80 percent of the nursing care in more than a 1,000 civilian hospitals" (Robinson, Page 112). Pendright (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't believe it, but if a source says it, I don't get a vote. What does Robinson say about when this occurred? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the end of the war. Perhaps the following might help:
  • "The U.S Cadet Nurse Corps has contributed greatly to meeting the needs of the Nation for nurses ... military and civilian. The Corps has made a substantial contribution to health in wartime." Robinson attributes this to president Harry Truman in August 1945 – also on page 112.
  • "As students, these young women filled the depleted ranks of civilian nurses and gave a high proportion of the total care afforded in hospitals throughout the country." P. 76, U.S. Public Health Service. Pendright (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes you give don't seem to support "providing 80 per cent of the country's nursing care", rather that in "more than a 1,000 civilian hospitals", or "made a substantial contribution" or "contributed greatly to meeting the need ... for nurses". Nor "By the time World War II ended" - you haven't supplied any date from a source as to when any level cadet nursing was being provided. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t seem to believe the source and by extension me, so solving what you see as the problem is a bit more difficult. Let’s quit this back and forth and see if we can find an acceptable solution. For my part, we can either delete the sentence or try and modify it – what’s your pleasure? Pendright (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the general message here is quite important, and so would be loath to see it deleted without replacement. True, I am sceptical of the current wording, but that scepticism would be readily trumped by an explit source. From the source material you have provided, how about 'During and after World War II cadet nurses made a major contribution to the nation's civilian and military health care needs, filling the largest part of the requirement for additional nurses.'? Or something similar. This is just off the cuff, I am sure that you can come up with something smoother. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads: During and after World War II, student nurses restored the diminished capacity of civilian nurses; making a major contribution to the nation's civilian and military healthcare systems.[57][58] Edit as you see fit! Pendright (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That reads fine, and seems well supported. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that giving the cadet hymn in full is WP:UNDUE. I note that Buidhe has already picked up on this. I agree.
I apparently missed this when first mentioned. I have no problem with cutting it back. The reference seems a bit subjective, so perhaps you’d give me a hit about what would be considered a reasonable length. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The last verse seems to capture the spirit of the piece.
<>Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robinson should have a publisher location.
Added San Francisco, CA - Pendright (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An informative and well written article. Just my nit picking above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of your comments, I believe, but a few will still need a response from you. Thanks for reviewing the article. Pendright (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three of your comments responded to. I am content that my other concerns have been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have respoded to these three - Pendright (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • The United States (U.S.) Cadet Nurse Corps (CNC) --> "The United States (U.S.) Cadet Nurse Corps (CNC)"
Fixed! Pendright (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you also address this sentence?
@CPA-5: Thanks for bringing this up! Your comment is silent on specifics, butt the sentence is in need of repair so I’ve rewritten it. If it does not cover your concerns, let me know what they are or edit as you see fit.
The United States (U.S.) Cadet Nurse Corps (CNC) was authorized by the U.S. Congress on 15 June 1943 and signed into law by president Franklin D. Roosevelt on 1 July; the legislative act contained a specific provision that prohibited discrimination based upon race, color, or creed. Pendright (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was authorized by the U.S. Congress Link U.S. Congress.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was answerable to the surgeon general of the United States, Thomas Parran, Jr. --> "it was answerable to the Surgeon General of the United States, Thomas Parran, Jr." title?
Changed per comment - Pendright (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No links for Nurse Training Act of 1943 and the National Defense Act of 1940?
If they exist on Wikipedia, then they have escaped me. Pendright (talk)
  • although they were not a part of any U.S. military service What were they then if they weren't part of the U.S. military?
Civilians - now reads: It also contained a provision requiring that those trained under the act would comprise a uniformed body,[12] yet they would be civilians and not a part of any U.S. military organization.[13] Pendright (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • drawn from various parts of the country.[Note 2][16] Re-oder the note and the ref.
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and published in the Federal Register What was the Federal Register?
In general, the Federal Register is an official journal of the US government; its function is to publish information on the rules promulgated by its agencies. Pendright (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawaii's two nursing schools were not eligible Pipe Hawaii to the Territory of Hawaii; same with Alaska.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The regulations required interested nursing schools to: Here should be a citation; remove the citation at the end of "Restrict its hours of practice." sentence.
To better uderstand your comment, I’d be interested to learn what the reasoning is behing it. Pendright (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • advertising space and technical services to the program in one year .Nearly every type --> "advertising space and technical services to the program in one year. Nearly every type"
I beg to differ, the sentences seem clear, concise, and imparts the necessary information in a straght forward manner. Pendright (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full stop is next to "Nearly" while it should be next to "year".
<>Fixed! My apology for missing the point. Pendright (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • nursing program of 36 months to 30 months Maybe flip the numbers and remove the first "months". It's not necessary.
Reversed - Pendright (talk)
  • With his rule-making powers, the surgeon general issued these regulations: Here should be a citation; remove the citation at the end of the "In evaluating the adequacy of the school" sentence.
Explain why? Pendright (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't find a policy on Wikipedia about this little issue, but, I saw many editors do this. It also looks a little bit nicer than it's now; IMO of course. If you disagree I'm fine with that. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<>I disagree, respectfully! Pendright (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Advisory committee:" in note 2 should have a citation and remove the second citation at the end of the note.
Explain why? Pendright (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank s for taking the time to review this article. While I have responded to each comment, several of them will need further discussion.Pendright (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every comment, you forgot my first comment. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me and couldn't find anything else. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Cadet_Nurse_Corps&oldid=952465914"