Talk:Army and Navy Union of the United States of America

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Army and Navy Union of the United States of America article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Army and Navy Union of the United States of America was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 19, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
February 25, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 8, 2016.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Army and Navy Union (badge shown) is the oldest veterans' organization in America?

Current status: Delisted good article

Military history: North America / United States

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Military history Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Army and Navy Union of the United States of America/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 10:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1

Sentence 3; Link "United States Armed Forces" to its article.
Done
Sentence 3; Link "United States" to its article.
Done
Last sentence; Revise this sentence, it is a bit misleading. Which is the veterans' organization in America, "Army and Navy Union" or the "federally chartered corporation"? The later has no meaning at all.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

Make this as a sub-section of section 1, as it is about the evolution of its name over time. In the last sentence, why a ";" is included at the end of Regular Army and Navy Union of the United States of America? Remove this. In the same sentence, what do you mean by "this name", mention the name completely. What is the "original society"? It is never explained in the previous sentences.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3

Para 1; last sentence; Remove "officers and enlisted men and women who are its members". Just "The distinctive badge has been used since then and worn on public occasions of ceremony by it members" is fine.
Done
Para 2; Remove "In fact", yes it is a fact and that is why it is mentioned. No need to mention that again. In that, did the Congress "authorize" or "condemn", why both are used, that completely opposite?
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 4

What do you mean by "Even after 100 years after its founding, the Army and Navy Union USA continues to operate". Is that a great thing? There are many such organizations. I suggest completely removing this sentence per WP:NPOV.
Done
De-capitalize "G" in "Garrisons", it is common noun.
Done
The sentence "Another duty of the Union members is to maintain constant vigilance against destructive forces that interfere with the United States government in any way", must also be revised as per NPOV.
Done
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The article's lead is too short, just a couple of lines is completely unacceptable for any article.

Done Expanded lead. --Doug Coldwell (talk)

There is no infobox for the article, you could add {{Infobox organization}}.

Done Added suggested Infobox. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from all these comments, I wonder whether this article meets the GA criteria. It is too small. Length is not the issue, but the coverage. Nothing is mentioned about its present organization, activities, activities in the past, notable incidents and contributions etc. I could see a lot of links containing a good bulk of information about the union. Please improve the coverage and expand it. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: - Thanks for review. We will start expanding the article and addressing the issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Expanded lead and added infobox. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: - I have fixed the issues you brought up and am done now. Please look over to make sure I covered everthing that should be corrected. If you have additional issues, I'll start working on them tomorrow (10/14/2016). --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: You have marked as done on all the issues, but I see that many of them are not addressed. If you have any contradiction with the issues raised you may question just below it. Leaving them unanswered will not do any good. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Thanks for reply. Sorry, misunderstood - meant to solve all the issues. I will now go through it line by line and issue for issue to make sure each is covered on a double check. I will try my best to solve all the issues you have brought up. Will work on it starting today. Will then notify you again (after a couple of days) to let you know I covered everything. Off to work I go....--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I have copy edited and expanded the article and gone through each issue on a double check. I am ready now for your re-review. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review

Section 1; para 1; By 1886, it was realized that these organizations would naturally become extinct due to deaths if something wasn’t done to give them new life. What do you mean by "deaths" in this sentence? Please clarify, death of who.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Section 1; para 1; They founded the Army and Navy Union of the United States of America, "they" — who? For same sentence, in the lead it was mentioned that it is also open to the serving member of US forces, but here it is mentioned as it was only for served i.e the retired. Correct this.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Section 1; para 2; It was signed by the President, please mention and link the then President who signed it.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Section 3; para 4; Please re-order the conventions as per their number. Let thirteen come first, then seventeen, then eighteen.

Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also do mention that information about the others did not survive. <<--- ::@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: What do you mean here? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only information about three conventions in mentioned in the article. What about the others? I suggest you to add a sentence stating that it is not available. If this is available please add it. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also expand the lead to two to three paras, mention something about its history and formation.

Done

Please add fields to infobox, some are available, for example add its official website [1]

Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is any information about the present chief or head available?

Done = Don Youngblood --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Include present list of garrisons from the official website. [2]

Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider adding information from this and this.

Done

Apart from these I did some edits for some grammar and MOS, if you feel wrong please feel free to revert them. But please do mention the reason here. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Thanks for re-review. I will work on these parts starting today. Will let you know when I am finished, probably in a couple of days. The grammar and MOS corrections you did look good and are excellent improvements.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I tried to cover all the issues you brought up. If I missed anything, please point out and I will correct or amplify as needed.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, all good to go. But a small MOS issue. While mentioning an event that took place in the past, preferably, it is better to use the date of the event first rather the others. For example, let us consider a sentence from the article; The Army and Navy Union began its eighteenth biennial convention at the Bohemian Hall in Baltimore, Maryland, on September 12, 1917. It ought to be "On September 12, 1917, the Army and Navy Union began its eighteenth biennial convention at the Bohemian Hall in Baltimore, Maryland". Please revise the others accordingly. Apart from this all good to go. I did some tweak. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

In section 6, why is the same garrison number allotted to two? As per MILHIS style manual as unit / battalion /corps /garrison etc. must be in the format of ID NUM + NAME, unless it only the number and unit. For example, it must 2/3 Rotterdam Battalion, not Rotterdam battalion #2/3 or something else. I did the corrections. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Corrected MOS issue of date first. Thanks for the correction of the Garrisons. I have never been in the military = so miss points like this. I learned a lot from you on this GA review and the corrections that had to be make = thank you for the assistance. If there is anything else, let me know and I will correct as needed.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All good to go. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]