- 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 10:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Walter Krueger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing the series on the commanders in the South West Pacific Area during World War II. This time it is the story of a German immigrant who became the first man to rise from private to four-star general in the United States Army. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hawkeye7. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
- Check for consistent of capitalization - ex Holzimmer vs Taafe. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't understand what is wrong here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'o' in University Press of Kansas is capitalized in Taafe.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - just a couple of quick comments from me after reading the later life section:
- Is it know what, specifically, James Krueger did that resulted in his discharge?
- All we know is that he was involved in a drunken incident. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it recorded why Dorothy murdered her husband? Or at least the reason she claimed for doing so?
- Ostensibly, depression and prescription drugs. Actually? "loneliness oppressed; she sought excitement in alcohol, forgetfulness in dope. The colonel, she believed, regarded his wife as a clinging handicap to his professional career. Last October Colonel Smith got orders to leave for Washington, where a promotion awaited him."
- Perhaps you can made a mention of her substance abuse and depression? Just to add context to the horrific incident. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes they have to stab one to death to encourage the rest.
- Also, I found that the fourth paragraph of this section (starting with "The United States Court...") reads rather awkwardly and I think it could do with a few tweaks and a copyedit.
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I made one change to the fourth paragraph; does that help? - Dank (push to talk) 01:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a couple of tweaks here also and think it is good now. Hawkeye and Dank, feel free to tweak with my changes if you disagree. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read through the rest of the article and have a couple of further comments:
- "After the United States commenced hostilities in April 1917" - given that the previous paragraph spoke of hostilities along the Mexican border, I think it should be clarified this was part of the First World War against Germany. Perhaps something like "After the United States entered the hostilities against Germany in April 1917".
- Is there any specific information on why Krueger was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal during the First World War?
- Sure, I can give you the entire citation if you like:
The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, July 9, 1918, takes pleasure in presenting the Army Distinguished Service Medal to Colonel (Infantry) Walter Krueger (ASN: 0-1531), United States Army, for exceptionally meritorious and distinguished services to the Government of the United States, in a duty of great responsibility during World War I. Colonel Krueger served as Assistant in the Bureau of Militia Affairs; Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3, and Acting Chief of Staff, 84th Division, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3, 26th Division, Chief of Staff, Tank Corps, Instructor, Line School, Langres, France, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3, 4th Corps, and Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3, 6th Corps. By his high professional attainments, superior zeal, loyal devotion to duty, soldierly character, and his dominant leadership, he has exercised a determining influence upon the commands with which he has served, and has contributed in a marked degree to the success of the military operations of our forces. General Orders: War Department, General Orders No. 3 (1924)
- Or we can just go with what the article says:For his service in the war, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal in 1919. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the citation is unnecessary, but greater context on the award could be given through snippets of it. For instance, the sentence could be changed to: "For his "superior zeal, loyal devotion to duty, soldierly character, and his dominant leadership" in France, Krueger was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal in 1919." It just presents a little information on why the US Government decided to decorate Krueger. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it known why he requested to attend the Naval War College?
- His experiences on the joint board acquainted him with the problems of inter-service co-operation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Krueger took with him several key members of the Third Army staff, including Brigadier General George Honnen as Chief of Staff, George H. Decker as Deputy Chief of Staff, and Clyde Eddleman as Assistant Chief of Staff" - Inconsistency here in mentioning Honnen's rank but not the rest. I think either mention the rank of all, or none.
- Why was Operation Chronicle subject to delays, and why was one of the commanders relieved as a result?
- Krueger's awards for his Second World War service feel a little tacked on at the end. Is it possible for you to elaborate why they were awarded and integrate this information into the appropriate sections of the text?
- No, they are in the right place. The citations were all the same; "for exceptionally meritorious and distinguished services to the Government of the United States, in a duty of great responsibility." Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt Krueger's awards here were for command of the Sixth Army and the citations are full of hyperbole, so I don't think full detail on the awards are necessary. What I am suggesting is that if the awards were granted for specific campaigns or battles, then the decorations should be mentioned in the sections appropriate to those actions. The mention of the awards at the end of the World War II section seems to be almost an afterthought. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I would if they were, but they were not. They were all awarded after the war ended, so the they appear in the correct place in the text, and for the reasons given. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, that is rather strange. My apologies for being a pain then! Abraham, B.S. (talk)
Aisde from the above, this is an excellent article and an interesting read. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My comments have been now been addressed, so I have changed to support. Nice work, as usual. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- Link and/or explain Alamo Force
- Tried. Is there anything in particular that is not clear? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain this further: the attack on New Britain, with a joint Army-Navy reconnaissance team raised issues of inter-service cooperation
- What are you referring to here? A generic procedure or something specific? and postpone the operation by a month There's no transition from the discussion about the Alamo Scouts to whatever this paragraph is about, Dexterity?
- Fix this: Colonel Aubrey D. Smith, with a hunting knife while he slept in their Army quarters in Japan. Dorothy, who felt that her husband, Colonel Aubrey D. Smith,
--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: then you are more fortunate that I and I would gladly trade with you -- should "that" be "than"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- "St Louis": St. Louis
- "who born": who was born (but you don't need "who was" three times)
- "for it embarked": the conjunction "for" is out of fashion, except in very formal or poetic settings.
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1994 Style manual [2] specifically allows it [Section 6.30] and even gives an example of its usage. ("Let us make the most of today, for tomorrow may never come.") Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Following the end of the war": Following the war (but I think I prefer: After the war)
- "his flight instructor, Lieutenant Claire Lee Chennault failed him": comma after the appositive
- "George S. Patton, Jr.": Links are generally applied to the whole proper noun; George S. Patton, Jr. or George S. Patton would work.
- "the 32nd Infantry Division at Rockhampton, Queensland; the 41st Infantry Division in the Buna area in Papua, and the 1st Marine Division in Melbourne, Victoria.": consistency needed ... I'd change the semicolon to a comma.
- "A communications breakdown led to the PT boat that was supposed to collect the team not being able to rendezvous": After a communications breakdown, the PT boat that was supposed to collect the team was not able to rendezvous
- "became a one": became one
- "Weeks of ferocious fighting were required to capture the city. Krueger was promoted to general on 5 March 1945.": Unless there's a connection, I'd insert a paragraph break.
- "life — and I believe it is — then": use en-dashes with spaces or em-dashes without, even if the original didn't.
- Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. Excellent writing. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I reviewed this article at MILHIST ACR, have checked the subsequent edits and those done in response to this review and consider it currently meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comments
- Healthy level of expert support but like to leave open a bit longer and see if we can't get a non-MilHist review as well.
- Image check, BTW?
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK (U.S. Navy and Army). Sources and authors provided.
Leaning to support Just a few things.
- Lede
- must the word general be mentioned twice in the lede paragraph? A general officer and a general are roughly equivalent, right? Perhaps "general officer" could be piped to an equivalent?
- A four-star general is the highest rank of general. I need it in the first sentence per MOS:LEAD. However, it is notable that he rose from private to four-star general. (He is not quite the first; he shares that honour with Courtney Hodges, who was promoted to four-star rank the same day.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "On 1 July 1901, he was commissioned." Perhaps "as a second lieutenant"?
- "In the Battle of Luzon, his largest, longest and last battle, he was finally able to maneuver his army as he had in 1941." Hm. Since most people won't have a clue what this specifically means, suggest that you mention the year and focus on his victory.
- Early service
- I would say specifically whether or not he saw combat in 1898. I gather not, but I would so say. It's also a little vague whether he did in the Philippines.
- Consider omitting the "however". I think it stands OK on its own.
- Interwar years
- " These informed his lectures on the war, and he argued that much of the German Army's performance was attributable to its system of decentralized command. Krueger urged that American commanders in the field be given wider latitude in carrying out their orders." I gather he liked what they did, so perhaps instead of "performance", something like "successful battles"?
- No, because they lost most of the battles. Changed to "effectiveness". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WWII
- "Krueger resigned himself to being a trainer of troops." Too soon to use that term again, he just resigned himself to retiring as a colonel. Suggest a variation.
- "skeleton staff" two uses in close association, ditto, ditto.
- "coping with the climate in SWPA" perhaps add "tropical" or "torrid" in there.
- "administrative entity, administration" see before. Can "administration" be changed to "it"?
- It would be helpful if you tossed in a (today in Papua-New Guinea) when he initially gets there and a place name is used.
- "where Japanese strength was unexpectedly strong" per above.
- "with even more dire consequences" What were the dire consequences before? I gather that there was a bitter fight, but that's war for you. If there were unexpectedly heavy casualties or some such, you might want to say so.
- "For the first time, Krueger was able to maneuver his army as he had done in Louisiana in 1941" You said that in the lede too. I still don't know what you mean. I'm guessing that he wasn't constantly invading small islands or working in the jungle so he's got room to work with.
- Can something more be done at some point to discuss how Krueger is viewed by military historians? I saw the passage about the criticism of his generalship, but that didn't tell me that much. Perhaps expand that to a couple of paragraphs and put it someplace?
- SWPA hasn't been a popular subject for American historians. I have added a couple of paragraphs at the end on his reputation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I've got. Happy to support once cleared up.Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Support Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
