Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lesley J. McNair/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2017 [1].

Lesley J. McNair[edit]

Nominator(s): Billmckern (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Lesley J. McNair, a United States Army officer who served as a general during both World War I and World War II. He is notable as the primary architect of the Army as it was organized, trained, equipped, and fielded for World War II. Billmckern (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from Nick-D[edit]

While this article is in good shape, I think that it would have benefited from a Military History Wikiproject A-class review prior to this nomination. In particular, I don't think that it really captures the debates over McNair's performance in World War II. This is a complex topic: from what I've read, while historians tend to strongly approve of some elements of his approach and strongly disapprove of others, what they like and dislike varies considerably! I have the following comments on the World War II section:

  • "In addition to Mark Clark, other officers who served on McNair's AGF staff and later achieved prominence included: Alexander R. Bolling; Floyd Lavinius Parks; James T. Duke; Willard Stewart Paul; Lyman Lemnitzer; and Robert A. Hewitt" - does this need to be specified? It's not surprising that some of the officers at this very high level and large HQ went on to achieve prominence during the war.
  • "McNair identified difficulty with training National Guard units" - slightly awkward wording
  • "He recommended demobilizing the National Guard" - did he really want to stand down the Guard units (and their personnel), or disband the often-dysfunctional Guard units to free up their personnel?
  • Regarding the 'Fielding army divisions' section, wasn't one of the goals to have a smallish number of high-quality units rather than a large number of average-quality units? The US Army's divisions of World War II were pound for pound probably the best-equipped of any combatant (for instance, the standard US Army infantry division of 1944 was more mobile and had more firepower than the supposedly elite German Panzergrenadier divisions, of which Germany only ever fielded a small number). I believe that most historians regard the organisational structure as a success.
  • The 'Individual replacement system' section seems much too kind to McNair. In particular, the statement that " more recent assessments have viewed it more favorably" isn't supported by the source: its Thomas Ricks quoting with approval a ten year old paper. Recent works continue to be highly critical of this system (in particular, how inexperianced soldiers were posted to combat units while they were on the front lines, leading to appalling and avoidable casualty rates)
  • "McNair attempted to improve recruiting into the AGF through improved public relations" - given that the US had conscription and most conscripts were allocated to the Army, why was this necessary?
  • The 'legacy' section should note the continuing debates over McNair's role in the war. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Billmckern, how are you going working through these comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ian Rose: I've worked off all but the individual replacement system and the additions to the legacy. I'll try to get to those tonight.
      • Billmckern (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:SandyHookProofBattery1900.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:General_Carlos_Brewer.jpg: source indicates that author is unknown
  • File:Lesley_McNair.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and source links are dead
  • File:McNair-TIME-1942.jpg: not sure about this - press images with the {{non-free historic image}} tag generally require a strong argument in favour of transformative use, and IMO there's not enough discussion of the image to support this
  • File:Lesley_J._McNair_Purple_Heart_1943_(2).jpg: where was this first published? And I think "uncredited" photographer was intended, rather than "unaccredited"?
  • File:Fort_Lesley_J_McNair_-_front_sign_-_Washington_DC.jpg: what is the copyright status of the sign itself?
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Officier_ribbon.svg should include a copyright tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Fixed all but individual replacement system. Work continuing.
Billmckern (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: @Nikkimaria: List of fixes:
Deleted line about officers on McNair's AGF staff
Re-worded line about training program for National Guard units
Added additional details on recommendation to demobilize National Guard
Added additional details about success of 90-division program
Added additional details about individual replacement system
Added additional detail about recruiting effort, and note to review individual replacement system section for additional details on why recruiting effort was necessary.
Added additional comments to legacy section about historical debates over McNair's decisions and actions, including individual replacement system, tank fielding, and tanks versus anti-tank guns.
Edited photo captions to remove periods where necessary
Added new source link for Sandy Hook Proof Battery photo
Added additional details about source of Carlos Brewer photo
Changed out File:Lesley_McNair.jpg for another version with better source data
Updated description of File:Fort_Lesley_J_McNair_-_front_sign_-_Washington_DC.jpg to indicate that sign is not copyrighted (Per DoD Community and Public Outreach Division; written confirmation pending)
File:Legion_Honneur_Officier_ribbon.svg - I don't know what I'm supposed to do with this. The current design has a license tag for the current design, and one in the data for the original design on which it's based. If there should be more information included, I don't what or how.
Billmckern (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I also included details about the publication of the photo which shows McNair wearing his Purple Heart.
Billmckern (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any info on the original design? (The immediate source is plwiki - I'm wondering about the original source). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: File:Legion d'Honneur Officier Ribbon.png - How about using this one instead?
Billmckern (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same issue. If you compare the other ribbons, they include a tag representing the copyright status of the original ribbon design, but I'm not sure what tag would apply to this since it's non-US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - Well, what's the fix, and how should I do it? I don't understand how to proceed to solve the problem.
Billmckern (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fix would be to find a tag that does apply. Would any of these match what is known about the ribbon? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags#European%20Union. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Well, one contributor is from poland and the other from the UK, but I don't see a license tag from either that seems to fit. I don't see an EU one that looks right, either. How about PD-shape, which is contained on File:Legion Honour ribbon (II class).svg and File:Red ribbon bar - general use.svg.
Billmckern (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the design is simple enough to qualify. But it doesn't matter where the uploaders are from: they didn't create the design themselves, it's based on a pre-existing work, right? That's the original design I'm referring to. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I give up. How about just deleting that image from the McNair article?
Billmckern (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get someone to re-look the Lesley McNair article and see if it's ready for featured status? I confirmed that the sign at the Ft. McNair main gate is not copyrighted, trademarked, or otherwise restricted in terms of making use of a photograph of it. I have no idea what to do to resolve the concern about the Legion of Honor ribbon image. If anyone else is in a position to help with it, I'll be appreciative.
Except for the concern about the Legion of Honor ribbon illustration, I think I've made all the other edits and fixes.
Billmckern (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged it with {{PD-shape}} Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

I reviewed this article at GA. I have to agree with Nick that this is a complex topic. So don't feel bad about it. And debates over his performance go a lot further than just military historians, being the subject of heated debate among professionals over the years:

  • In answer to Nick, whether one of the goals to have a smallish number of high-quality units rather than a large number of average-quality units? No, the goal was to have a large number of average-quality units. But the ground Army was forced to halt at 89 divisions ("the 89-division gamble") instead of the 250 originally envisaged.
  • Having fewer divisions led directly to the problem with the divisions being in combat for too long. Replacement shortages led to melting most of the separate regiments into the replacement stream, exacerbating the problem. It also led to divisions being stripped for replacements, which disrupted McNair's training regime.
  • US equipment was not invariably better than the enemy's. Case in point is the heavy artillery, which was used because the German medium artillery outranged its US counterparts. . See Mayo, On Beachhead and Battlefront, pp. 202-204. Note that McNair was an advocate of heavy artillery. See Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 233–234
  • The individual replacement issue was a vexing one because it would recur in Vietnam. Despite far less intense combat, the divisions slowly degraded. As a result, unit rotation was chosen for the War in Iraq.
  • The article is still too soft on McNair's opposition to the heavier tank. See Thomson and Roots, Planning Munitions for War, pp. 280-283 (available online) McNair: "the M4 tank, particularly the M4A3, has been widely hailed as the best tank on the battlefield today ... Other than this particular request, which represents the British view—there has been no call from any theater for a 90mm tank gun. There appears to be no fear on the part of our forces of the German Mark VI (Tiger) tank ... there can be no basis for the T26 tank other than the conception of a tank versus tank duel—which is believed unsound and unnecessary ... there is no indication that the 76mm antitank gun is inadequate against the Mark VI (Tiger) tank."
  • The downsized armoured division was resisted, with the 2nd and 3rd remaining on the old establishment.
  • Note that McNair doubted the value of the armoured divisions, and suggested reducing their number to six. It became frozen at sixteen. See Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 332–335
  • There is also the light divisision schmozzle, and McNair proposal to convert airborne divisions into light divisions.

Source review

  • Calhoun's 2015 book is not used as a reference; move it to the "Further reading" section
  • Nor is his West Point memorial page
  • And the last of the external links. (Remove the ref card)
  • FN136 source does not mention the M3 explicitly. Suggest Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, p. 427
  • Last use of FN144 in "Tanks" does not support In 1943, Devers and other commanders with tank experience succeeded in convincing George Marshall of the need for a tank with more armor and firepower than the M3 and M4. You need another source, and I think you'll find it was in 1944.

More to come... Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Continuing source review

  • FN6, 33, 51, 55, 78, 83, 101, 122, 150, 155, 195 - okay
  • FN186 - Does not mention the museum
  • FN187 - Does not say it was redeveloped as an apartment building. You say that "it was closed and turned over to the German government when the 17th Signal Battalion moved to Kitzingen in 1992". But the source does not mention the 17th Signal Battalion, and although it did in fact leave for Kitzingen in 1992, it was not closed until 1994.
  • FN189 - I think it's the Fort Leavenworth Hall of Fame, not the Fall of Fame.
  • Zabecki's book has the wrong ISBN. The last digit should bve "8"
  • Calhoun's 2015 book should be added to the "Further reading" section; leave the facebook page in the external links
  • Link Command and General Staff College
  • Link Camp Fuji
  • "Seated (right) is Clare McNair's." Remove the apostrophe and the "s".
Otherwise fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I fixed all the source review issues.
I started working to address the other comments. Stay tuned.
Billmckern (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I believe the edits I've made this morning address all your comments here -- airborne divisions, light divisions, armored divisions, and so on. Please let me know what you think.
Billmckern (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Edits made in accordance with details of your 25 August comment.
Billmckern (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

This is mostly excellent, but I have a few small points.

Early life
  • Why do you list his sisters' husbands?
  • I think the list of classmates is formatted wrong. You could lose the colon and replace the semi-colons with comma.
  • Should "Engineer branch" and "Artillery branch" be capitalized? It seems out of place.
Early career
  • Is "temporary captain" the same as a brevet rank?
    No, it isn't. A temporary rank is normally held while serving in a particular posting; the holder recieves the pay, authority and allowances of that rank, but will revert to his or her substantive rank on termination of the posting. They are still in use today. A brevet rank was an honorary title which conferred none of the authority, precedence or pay of full rank. So they were permanent, but useless, although still highly prized. They were common during the War of the Rebellion, but disappeared from the US Army around the turn of the twentieth century. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow up with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coemgenus:
  • I listed the husbands only to make it easier for anyone interested in researching the family to keep track of them. I don't think it's wrong, but I'm not married to it, either. I can change it if that's a sticking point.
  • Not a dealbreaker, I just thought it was unusual. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to commas instead of semicolons for list of classmates.
  • Changed to lower case for engineer and artillery branch.
  • A temporary rank is not the same as a brevet. A brevet was honorary - you could wear the insignia and be addressed by the higher title, but the lower rank was the actual rank for purposes of pay, benefits, and seniority. A temporary rank was actual for pay and benefits, but the individual lost the pay and benefits if he reverted to his lower actual rank. In fact, reading McNair's entry in the 1920 West Point Biographical Register just now, I noticed that he was promoted to temporary first lieutenant AND temporary captain while with the ordnance corps. I'll make that edit, too.
  • OK, thanks, I was unclear on the difference. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Billmckern (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
World War I
  • "In June 1919, McNair was named to the AEF board..." How long did the AEF exist after the war ended?
School of the Line
  • It might be good to briefly explain what the School was, something like "...one of the faculty members of the Army's School of the Line, a training school for infantry and cavalry officers."
  • I think I already did that by explaining that it was the school where field grade officers went to learn how to manage and lead operations at division and higher.
  • Yes, I missed that.
Purdue
  • "Already a prolific author of professional journal articles on technical military subjects, he authored numerous articles..." I'd change "authored" to "wrote" or "penned" to avoid repetition.
  • Fixed

I'll come back with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me know if you have other suggestions.
Individual replacement system
  • "friends and buddies" one or the other should do, no?
  • That's really all I have. Nice article, I'm glad to support its promotion. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: This is approaching two months now, and it stuck on two supports. I wonder if Nick-D has any further thoughts about this article? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

John F Jamele (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)-- I am the holder of a Master's Degree in US History and have taught Advanced Placement US History for twenty years. In my opinion this article appears very well-referenced and well-written.[reply]

Coordinator note: As it stands, I would disregard this support as it does not address the FA criteria; single-line supports are little use at FAC, so this would need fleshing out. Nor is the editor a frequent contributor (see here), which makes this support a little ... odd. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "Recognizing that continuing improvement to innovations including machine guns and tanks made the static trench warfare of World War I unlikely to be repeated, successive Gunnery Department directors Jacob Devers, Carlos Brewer, and Orlando Ward experimented with new techniques, including increasing the speed of artillery support to mobile armor and infantry by empowering Artillery-qualified fire support officers attached to those formations to direct artillery fire, and enhancing accuracy through artillery fire that could be seen and directed by forward observers rather than the unobserved timed fire and rolling barrages that had prevailed in World War I.": Too long.
  • "Used to working "hands on"": Rephrase.
  • "A variety of other factors, including the entry of the Soviet Union into the war on the side of the Allies, the need to ensure that enough farmers and agricultural workers were available for food production, and the need to maintain a U.S. workforce large enough to handle the production of weapons, vehicles, ammunition, and other equipment caused Army Chief of Staff Marshall to decide that maintaining the Army's ground combat strength at 90 divisions would strike the balance between too few soldiers to defeat the Axis powers, and so many that there were not enough civilians in the U.S. workforce.": Too long. Also, clarify "entry of the Soviet Union" ... are you talking about the start of Operation Barbarossa?
  • "high quality" (x3): Avoid quote marks unless you need them, because they can be interpreted at least four different ways. One interpretation here is that they weren't really high quality, they were just called that. If "top candidates" would be accurate, then that's probably clear enough to stand without quote marks.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. I stopped at Awards and honors. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Edits made IAW your suggestions. Thanks.
Billmckern (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: The images currently do not have alt text. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. Also, the duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. The only other issue I can see, based on the discussion above about his controversial reputation among historians, the lead seems light on his legacy and on this controversy. I think I'd like to see these little issues sorted out before we promote. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished addressing these concerns (I think). Please let me know if anyone else has any suggestions for improvement.
Billmckern (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I still see a few duplinks, but it's not worth holding this up any longer. I would still recommend using the tool to find them. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2017 (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/Lesley_J._McNair/archive1&oldid=805372800"