SPARS has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 21, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force Gender studies Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Domestic violence in lesbian relationships · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Yogabear2020, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on March 23–29, 2024.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles Previous copyedits: /  This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist on 8 May, 2016.

Image:Coast guard flag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists numerous reference sources, yet very little of the SPARS story has found its way into the article itself. Should anyone be watching this page, I plan to rework and expand the article (subject to the MOS) with the expectation of upgrading its Stub-class rating. Pendright (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPARS was rated a Good Article in July of 20l16 and now, finally, I've decided to fine-tune it enough to qualify for an A-Class nomination. So, if you are watching this page, expect to see some edit activity. Pendright (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear! I'm sure you will to an A-Class job, too. Thanks!! Cuprum17 (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You can expect a ping when I need the help of an expert. Regards! Pendright (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As part of my recent GOCE edit, I tried to unify the usage/formatting of the term "SPARS" (and variants). Looking through the sources revealed a variety of usage, even within articles produced by one organization (such as the USCG online newsletter "My CG", searching for articles tagged "SPARs" or "Spar"). So I made some choices, based on USCG usage, and came up with my own 'standard'. In my edits, I have:

• used "SPARS" to mean 'the (USCG) Women's Reserve', hence singular and usually preceded by "the", as in "the SPARS was authorized"
• used "SPAR" as a noun modifier, as in "SPAR recruitment poster" meaning "Women's Reserve recruitment poster" (two noun modifiers in this case, one noun as subject), or in "SPAR personnel"
• used "SPARs" to refer to the 'female reservists', hence plural, as in "200 SPARs were sent to Alaska". (as can be found in more recent (after 1946) "My CG" articles, see link above)
• based on above (and USCG sources), used "SPAR" also to mean an individual reservist, as in "the first SPAR to be recruited was"
• also used "Spar"/"Spars" in some cases to mean 'individual reservists' when found in direct quotes, as from Three Years Behind the Mast (1946), per MOS principal of minimal change. (MOS:PMC) NOTE: Behind the Mast, and other sources, do use "Spars" to refer to the Women's Reserve as a whole; but the USCG usage of "SPARs" is more recent, more authoritative (if not always consistent)—and using all-caps for "the SPARS" was already the choice of article as I found it.

I know this may be splitting hairs: but it does help making other small edits (such as checking verb tense, or deciding whether "the" is needed before "SPARS"). This is me being pedantically transparent. —Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 00:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogabear2020: @Cuprum17:

• Name consistency matters, so kudos to you.
• "whether "the" is needed before "SPARS")" seems worthy of further discussion. At least three of the sources used for the article use either the indefinite article (a) or the definite article (the) before SPAR or SPARs, including: Three Years Before the Mast, the USCG, and Yellin. Moreover, the articles are basic to the rules of English grammar. Pendright (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think my comment re: "the SPARS" may have been misleading? The "the" does seem necessary, in terms of grammar, if "the SPARS" is equivalent to "the Women's Reserve". (I meant that remembering this was useful to check to make sure "the" was, indeed, present. I'm not sure much discussion is merited?) And, yes, "a" or "the" when it fits the usage seems correct. (And thanks for the acknowledgment.) —Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 20:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished doing a GOCE edit, per a request by @Pendright on the GOCE Request page (WP:GOCER). As part of this, I attempted to:

• vary the use of repeated terms, such as USCG/SPARS, or even U.S. Navy. (partly in response to editing comment by @Cuprum17
• make the usage of "SPARS" more consistent. (see separate thread above)
• use "em-dash" whenever possible. (this style-choice was evident before I arrived)
• trim the lede, esp. to eliminate repetition of items discussed later.
• improve accuracy of description of LORAN (with the help of @Cuprum17, thanks!). LORAN is not the focus of the article, but I hope we got it right.
• re-order some sections of text, to bring together pieces of the same topic/argument (and tried! to bring the refs along).
• update a few section headings, to be more like nouns & more specific to topic.
• attribute unattributed passages, or better incorporate; and made effort to verify direct or block quotes (some quotes marked "direct" included paraphrase, for example). I did my best to correct–incorporate quoted text. Some sections seemed to cut/paste from WP sources (such WAVES or Dorothy C. Stratton) or other sources (such as those from Three Years Behind the Mast), without clear attribution.

That's most of it. Thanks for your patience as this novice tried to finish the task. Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 00:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright mentioned in GOCE Request for Copyedit (WP:GOCE/REQ) that this article might be put up for an A-class review (ACN). I thinks it looks pretty good, but I've noted a few sections that could perhaps use some attention (if someone wanted to), especially to add to the "story":

• In the section African American women : I added "Yeoman" to Olivia Hooker (found easily on her page). Could rank be added to the other Black service-women? (Even the previous section on Native American women gives the rank of each.) I could not find this information (quickly) myself. (NOTE: some NPS articles refer to a "lack of records" on this issue of SPAR 'minority recruitment'—both for Black women, but also Hispanic, etc.

(1) Yeoman: A Wikipeia article is not considered a reliable source to use as a source for another Wikipedia article.

Yes, you are right: WP is not a source. Only mentioned as the other article made it easy for me to find her rank; and it wasn't easy to find ranks for the others (for reasons you note below). I do think the source for Hooker, already included in your citations, did include her rank; or the sources on her article did. But thanks for the reminder. Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk)

[2] In the circumstaces, your NOTE contains the likly answer to your question. But, here is another way to view it: The ban on black women ended in October 1944, yet Hooker did not enlist until February 1945 and didn't start boot camp until March. Given that demobilization began in August 1945, the other four could have served as little as six months. In which case, they probably were rated as seamen witout time to have become rated as petty officers. Hooker, on the other hand, was discharged in June 1946 because as a Yeomen she was held longer in order to help process both men and women out of the USCG.

Great! Makes sense. Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk)

[3] For recruitment purposes, the Navy Department did not consider Latinos, Native Americans, and Chinese as minorities. So, they were free to enter the service and compete for ratings along with those of the majority.

Yes, makes sense. So that topic probably doesn't need to be added. Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 00:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a few other details could be added for notable women in Minority recruitment? There is much notable about Olivia Hooker; and the NPS project on SPARS ( at the NPS article on SPARS, see end-links to other articles in the series), which has separate articles for each of the Native American recruits. (Yes, too many details would probably be more appropriate for individual articles; but a few might help in the section.)

Will do - Pendright (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider adding another section ("Other"?) in Minority recruitment with some mention other diverse groups, such as Latina? I don't see that there was an "official" policy on this, but it is of interest, just to list "firsts" or other notable women. Again, "My CG" (articles related to SPARs) and NPS (linked above) both have specific articles on "minority" women. [I might try adding something about this myself, but not today.]

Addressed above - Pendright (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In the section Women of the SPARS, could some examples be given, of actual awards? (One might search the USCG the USCG 1946 report (linked above), as it includes many lists, including in the captions of photos. Again, the USCG online newsletter "My CG" (linked above) is another good source, searching for articles tagged "SPARS" and/or "SPAR".

Will do - Pendright (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As for adding to the "story", the LORAN article at "My CG" pulls out some VERY interesting stories about the "top-secret" aspect. (They all seem to come from Behind the Mast, but the "My CG" version is easier to read.)

We'll let the ACN reviewers decide! Pendright (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk)

That's my two-cents. —Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 00:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogabear2020: @Cuprum17: Thank you for your copy edit of the Women's Reserve article known as SPARS. I'm looking forward to addressing your commentary, but not until after I’ve reviewed the edited version. Often-times copy edit changes can result in conflicts with source or other information, so I'll be cognizant of these things as I reread the text and will amend it should this be, in my opinion, necessary. Pendright (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogabear2020: @Cuprum17: I think I have touched all the bases. But, I'll be back for my two-cents worth! Pendright (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: @Cuprum17: Once again, sounds good! In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have referenced "ACN review" in the heading of my comments. I didn't mean to imply that these issues must be addressed before a review: the article is/was just fine already. Maybe I should have just written "Ideas for later improvement"? In any case, you have clearly addressed all my ideas: so thanks for taking the time! Looking forward to the ACN: this is a nice article that you have clearly given a lot of attention. (And you deserve at least a nickel!) — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 00:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogabear2020: @Cuprum17:

My two-cents worth

Here are some examples of the changes made that contradict accepted rules of the road; they are, in my view, important enough to bring to your attention.

Punctuating independent clauses

• Semicolons were used consistently to join independent clauses that were joined by coordinating conjunctions.

The rules

• Separate independent clauses with a comma when using a coordinating conjunction. Separate independent clauses with a semicolon when not using a coordinating conjunction.

Paragraph splitting

• On two occasions when paragraphs were split the paragraphs split were left without citations.

@Pendright: My apologies. I did my best to check for that. If I can help restore what is missing, let me know. (Otherwise, no response needed.) I would look for them myself, but you haven't pointed to where these citations were lost; so I can't try to fix my errors. You seem to have my other errors covered: thanks for taking the time to do that. (I also left a note below, in a new thread, about other errors I may have made that might still need to be fixed.) — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 14:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which vs. that & had been vs. was

• Lead: This is what the sentence says now and what it originally said: Later, their training took place at Palm Beach, Florida, in the Biltmore Hotel that was remodeled for use as a training center. You changed it to which had been

• The rules

• Which is used after a comma to introduce a nonessential relative clause. That is used without a comma to introduce an essential relative clause.
• had been is used to describe something that had taken place and went on for a period of time
• was is used to describe something that happened in the past and has ended

I look forward to your reply. Pendright (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning seems correct on all counts—but all these errors seem to have been fixed. I apologize for the extra work required to find and fix my mistakes, and I'll try to learn from them. (I clearly have a lot to learn.) I am (and was and will be for some time) a novice. If you need a further response from me, find my talk page. Otherwise, my editing session has ended: no need to ping me here in the future. — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 03:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started a new thread in response to previous which was getting long and seemed to be drifting from the topic mentioned in heading.

In the clear light of day, I went back over the article and found a few occurrences of semicolon used between independent clauses connected by a conjunction that still remain, as well as other semicolon-related potential errors. These errors are probably all my own, from my previous editing session, as discussed in the thread above. As due diligence, I list them below; I haven't changed them, leaving this up to consensus from others. Again, apologies for any errors I may have made in my previous editing session.

I have included suggestions for from this to this instead (whether or not these are useful, and I'm sure there might be other fixes).

• In the section The director:

"She retired from the USCG in January 1946; and, by June of the same year, the SPARs were demobilized." (which could be "January 1946, and, by June" ?)

• In the section General recruitment efforts:

"SPAR recruitment information was sometime disseminated along with WAVES publicity materials; but it became increasingly apparent that the job of selling the SPARS would include selling the USCG itself." (which could become "publicity materials, but it became")

• In the section Assignments:

"But in late 1944, as the war was nearing an end, Congress lifted the prohibition; and this allowed SPARs to serve overseas." (which could become "lifted the prohibition, and this allowed" or "prohibition: this")

• In the section Legacy:

"She had a complement of six officers and 74 enlisted in 1945; and later, in 1966, a complement of four officers, two warrant officers, and 47 enlisted." (which could become "in 1945, and later, in 1966," I think?)

There is also an occurrence of semicolons used in series (for a list) with one semicolon missing (I think):

• In the section Women of the SPARS:

"Some became active nurse's aides or rolled bandages for the Red Cross, others donated blood to blood banks; some visited service men in convalescent hospitals; and others collected gifts for the men overseas." (which should be "Red Cross; others donated" ?)

Also perhaps two misplaced semicolons (where just a comma is needed?):

• In the section Background:

"directed the Coast Guard to operate as part of the Navy; placing it under the supervision" (which could be "Navy, placing it" ? or "Navy, which placed it" ?)

• In the section Post–World War II:

"In 1973, Congress enacted legislation ending the Women's Volunteer Reserve; allowing women to be officially integrated into active duty or the reserve." (which could be "Volunteer Reserve, allowing women" or "Reserve; this allowed women" or just a colon/full-stop between?)

I'll let consensus decide what is appropriate (so I don't need a ping): I don't feel comfortable making the changes myself (although they are probably my own previous errors). Thanks for your tolerance, and my apologies for the extra work. I hope this helps the overall effort without coming across as biting. — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 14:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogabear2020: @Cuprum17:

I'm confused! I enlisted the aid of GOCE for the very purpose of preparing the article for ACN consensus. But instead, your work has left its preparedness in doubt. I conclude by suggesting that you review the following MOS guidelines: Wikipedia:Quotations and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting Aloha! Pendright (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: I am a new editor: this was my first attempt to edit a GOCE request. I seemed to have caused quite a number of confusions, both in my comments on this talk page, and as part of my GOCE editing: my apologies. I will contact GOCE for advice. It was not my intention, in any way, to get in the way of prepping the article for ACN. I will get back to you when I have some guidance. Thanks for your patience. — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 14:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogabear2020: @Cuprum17: For my part, no further discussion or action on the matter is necessary from your end. I'll prepare for the ACN in the manner I see fit. I’m sorry that your debut got off to such a rocky start. All the best1! Pendright (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Good luck on the ACN. Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 00:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]