The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 6 May 2019 [1].
This article is about a relatively unknown, yet fairly important office of the United States Army. After a GA review from Gog the Mild, an A-class review from Peacemaker67, Dumelow, and Zawed, I feel this meets the criteria. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I carried out the source review for ACR (and assessed the article at GAN) and deliberately pitched it at FAC level, sorry Eddie. Skimming the minor changes since then, I feel that I can simply repeat my summary from there:
The sources are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. The limited direct copying is of PD sources and is appropriately attributed. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.
@ FAC coordinators: Could you let me know if a first FAC spot check is required? I have done a couple, but not, IMO, sufficient for a first FA check. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 12:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I went over this article with a fine tooth comb at Milhist ACR, have looked at the minor changes since it was promoted, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
image review
|upright=1
for all portraitsShall look in again more thoroughly soon, but meanwhile the BrE "recognised" seems out of place in so American an article. Tim riley talk 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. A few minor points, which don't affect my support:
Few of the sources are especially recent, but the subject of the article does not strike one as needing particularly recent scholarship. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 11:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
As this is the nominator's first time at FAC, this will require a source spot-check for verifiability and close paraphrasing. Thanks for asking, Gog the Mild. -- Laser brain (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Cite spot checks:
In the period after World War I, the inspectorate dealt with many problems, including complaints over misdirected mail, misconduct by soldiers and damage to civilian property268 is unnecessary. 295 cites
and Germany (until 1923). 309 cites
Russia (until 1920), 313-14 cite
the same year a plan to severely limit the Department's responsibilities was proposed.and 330, 1, and 2 cite
By 1920, 33 officers were in the Office of the Inspector General, while 54 remained at camps or in the geographical departments. In 1915 the office had handled about 9,500 actions, while by 1921 it processed nearly 17,700.67.242.19.37 ( talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Nb, these are in addition to spot checks I carried out, but did not specifically record, at GAN, ACR and the ordinary FAC source review above. Actually I am impressed. Apart from a tendency to over-cover with Whiitehorne it is good.
Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Eddie891: Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Eddie891. Apologies if I have missed a ping. That all seems tickety boo to me. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
This status was noted symbolically in 1924. General Helmick, along with several other department heads, was authorized to capitalize the word The in his title. A precedent for this practice was made in 1907, when General Ainsworth converted his office from Military Secretary back to Adjutant General. The general order directing this change specified that the word The would precede the title designation of the department head. Since then the heads of other similar departments periodically agitated for a similar distinction, achieving success in 1924. At this time General llelmick had the title of The Inspector General. Although the use of capitalization was restricted to the head of the department or agency, the office acronym reflected the change- for example, Helmick's office symbol changing from OIG to OTIG
— page 320
Further comments
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 6 May 2019 [1].
This article is about a relatively unknown, yet fairly important office of the United States Army. After a GA review from Gog the Mild, an A-class review from Peacemaker67, Dumelow, and Zawed, I feel this meets the criteria. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I carried out the source review for ACR (and assessed the article at GAN) and deliberately pitched it at FAC level, sorry Eddie. Skimming the minor changes since then, I feel that I can simply repeat my summary from there:
The sources are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. The limited direct copying is of PD sources and is appropriately attributed. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.
@ FAC coordinators: Could you let me know if a first FAC spot check is required? I have done a couple, but not, IMO, sufficient for a first FA check. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 12:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I went over this article with a fine tooth comb at Milhist ACR, have looked at the minor changes since it was promoted, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
image review
|upright=1
for all portraitsShall look in again more thoroughly soon, but meanwhile the BrE "recognised" seems out of place in so American an article. Tim riley talk 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. A few minor points, which don't affect my support:
Few of the sources are especially recent, but the subject of the article does not strike one as needing particularly recent scholarship. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 11:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
As this is the nominator's first time at FAC, this will require a source spot-check for verifiability and close paraphrasing. Thanks for asking, Gog the Mild. -- Laser brain (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Cite spot checks:
In the period after World War I, the inspectorate dealt with many problems, including complaints over misdirected mail, misconduct by soldiers and damage to civilian property268 is unnecessary. 295 cites
and Germany (until 1923). 309 cites
Russia (until 1920), 313-14 cite
the same year a plan to severely limit the Department's responsibilities was proposed.and 330, 1, and 2 cite
By 1920, 33 officers were in the Office of the Inspector General, while 54 remained at camps or in the geographical departments. In 1915 the office had handled about 9,500 actions, while by 1921 it processed nearly 17,700.67.242.19.37 ( talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Nb, these are in addition to spot checks I carried out, but did not specifically record, at GAN, ACR and the ordinary FAC source review above. Actually I am impressed. Apart from a tendency to over-cover with Whiitehorne it is good.
Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Eddie891: Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Eddie891. Apologies if I have missed a ping. That all seems tickety boo to me. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
This status was noted symbolically in 1924. General Helmick, along with several other department heads, was authorized to capitalize the word The in his title. A precedent for this practice was made in 1907, when General Ainsworth converted his office from Military Secretary back to Adjutant General. The general order directing this change specified that the word The would precede the title designation of the department head. Since then the heads of other similar departments periodically agitated for a similar distinction, achieving success in 1924. At this time General llelmick had the title of The Inspector General. Although the use of capitalization was restricted to the head of the department or agency, the office acronym reflected the change- for example, Helmick's office symbol changing from OIG to OTIG
— page 320
Further comments