# Talk:United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve

Would it be appropriate to mention the un-official WW2/Korean era Female Marines Nickname? "BAMS" for Broad Assed Marines. Ah, the joy of a dad and uncles who were Marines! :-)
--Purpleslog 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It would absolutely NOT be appropriate! Your relatives notwithstanding, you should be made aware that the term "BAM" is an insulting, demeaning, sexist and derogatory term imposed on the women who served in the Marine Corps, by the men who felt we had no place in the Corps. It is not and has never been acceptable! As a Woman Marine vet myself (served in the late 70s/early80s), I definitely wouldn't appreciate seeing such slurs in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. It would be the same as seeing terms like the "N" word used in items about African Americans or words like f*ggot in articles about gays. In case you're unaware of the history and protocol, we Women Marines were not intended to have any sort of nickname, cutesy, derogatory or otherwise. Women Marines are MARINES, and should be referred to as such always. This was per the Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Thomas Holcomb who authorized the mobilization of women into the Corps. In a March 1944 issue of Life magazine, he announced, “They are Marines. They don't have a nickname and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere at a Marine post. They inherit the traditions of Marines. They are Marines.” [1]  Ladycascadia (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is titled United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve. But the information extends to the general history of women in the Marine Corps. I think the title should change, but I'm not sure what should be the new title. Maybe "Women in the U.S. Marine Corps"? Maurreen (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The general information, especially after 1946, makes me think the article should be split, with some WWII material staying and the rest moving to Women in the United States Marine Corps. There is already an article entitled Women in the United States Navy, though it is poorly formatted. In the same vein, articles could be written about Women in the United States Coast Guard, Women in the United States Air Force and Women in the United States Army. There is no such article written (yet) for the US Army or Air Force. These articles could pick up where SPARS, Women Airforce Service Pilots, Women's Army Corps and Women in the Air Force (WAF) leave off. Another needed article is Women in the United States military. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I did consider splittting it, but both articles would be pretty small, just a few paragraphs. Maurreen (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Should anyone be watching this page, I hope to rework and expand the article (according to MOS), with the expectation of upgrading its Start-class rating. But first, some background: the title of the article is United States Marine Corps Women’s Reserve. Yet, the article describes two distinct subjects, women who served in the women’s reserve in WW II (by an act of Congress) and women who served in World War I (by edict of the Secretary of the Navy in 1917). Congress authorized the Women’s Reserve in 1942 during WW II; no such organization seemed to have existed prior to that time. Now, because the title is US Marine Corps Women’s Reserve, it follows that the subject matter or theme of the article would be about the women’s reserve during WW II. This question was put to the WT:MIL; responses seemed to favor splitting the article into two articles, which appears the most plausible course to follow. So, the text relative to WW I will be moved to the talk page, where it will be held and later used to start a new article. Pendright (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

World War I service
Faced with manpower shortages in 1918, Major General Commandant George Barnett asked the Secretary of the Navy's permission to enlist women for clerical duties.
On 13 August 1918, Opha May Johnson became the first woman to enlist in the Marines. 305 women entered the Marine Corps in 1918, taking over stateside clerical duties from battle-ready Marines needed overseas. The women were nicknamed Marinettes.
Pendright (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
For future reference:
Ebbert, Jean, and Marie-Beth Hall. The First, the Few, the Forgotten: Navy and Marine Corps Women in World War I (Naval Institute Press, 2002) Pendright (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, thanks for checking my q-marked edit. I understand wording of direct quotes should not be altered. Actually, by coincidence, yesterday I undid an edit on another article where a well-meaning editor had changed "bloody" to "very" in a direct quote:)
Just want you to know that I am very cautious and did indeed check the Stremlow source here and the 'as' was in Roosevelt's quote on page 40 as indicated.
I also checked other sources to confirm and searches gave me this and this and this. I'm happy to leave this to you. Kind regards, JennyOz (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious note, JennyOz. I only removed it since your edit summary seemed to indicate you were not sure. I appreciate your checking the sources, and it turns out you were right! I've undone my edit.  – Corinne (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Corinne. I sometimes add a question mark in my edit summaries as I am anything but bold and hope primary editor/s will double check. In this case I thought that maybe a different edition of Stremlow's work may have omitted the word.  All is good. This article was a delight to read - special thanks to Pendright and yourself. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 18:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to see an article on this topic coming up at GAR. Will read through and review fully in the next few days. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; 

"yet the Marine Corps delayed the formation of the WR until 13 February 1943." - "yet" is a strange word to use here. "but"?
 Done
"The law provided that members of the WR may be commissioned or enlisted in such ranks and ratings equal to the regular Marine Corps, and effective for the duration of the war plus six months." - "might be" (given the past tense previously). "was effective"?
 Done
"After attending Bryn Mawr College, Streeter was involved in health and welfare work." - is a bit confusing here in the lead, and probably isn't necessary
 Done
"were fairly stringent" - "fairly" makes the phrase a bit unclear; what is actually meant?
To be clear, removed the word fairly.
"WR members labored in the clerical field" - "labored" can have several different meanings. "worked"?
 Done
"The Corps delayed formation of the WR until 13 February 1943..." My advice would be to make this the beginning of a new paragraph; the existing one is quite long, and will read longer on the screen than it would do on a printed page.
 Done
"and "there was considerable unhappiness about making the Marine Corps anything but a club for white men"." - you'll need to attribute the quote (i.e. who is saying this)
Removed quote marks - quote is from the reference source and not an individual.
"But he later reversed himself, saying..." - when did he reverse himself? (NB: if it's not around 1943, I'd move the quote to a more relevant section, to keep the historical narrative intact)
The item is also under the section titled Women of the WR. It’s placed in the lead summary because it is notable.
The reader still doesn't know when he reversed himself though; if it didn't happen in 1943, when did he change his mind? If he changed his mind in 1945, for example, it's odd to place this in the background section of the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
It now reads: Before the end of 1943, however, he had reversed himself, Pendright (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
"And there were many of them, including: Femarines, WAMS, BAMS, Dainty Devil-Dogs, Glamarines, Women's Leatherneck-Aides, MARS, and Sub-Marines. " As written, it is unclear who were putting these forward / using them. I'd also advise against starting a sentence with "And..."
It now reads: Despite Holcomb’s dislike for nicknames, several of them surfaced for the WR, including ...
"Ruth Cheney Streeter" - this section is very long when presented as a single paragraph, and badly needs splitting up.
 Done
"was named the first director of the WR; commissioned a major " - unclear if the semicolon is correct here?
Wikipedia’s Manual of Style refers to the Chicago Manual of Style as another reference source. In it, the Chicago opines that the semicolon’s most common use is between two independent clauses not joined by a conjunction.
" She was described as confident, spirited, patriotic, and a principled person, all qualities she had demonstrated. " - who described her? Also, unclear whose judgement the "demonstrated" is coming from.
It now reads: In the Free a Marine to Fight publication, Colonel Mary V. Stremlow (Ret. MCWR) described her as confident, spirited, patriotic, and a principled person, all qualities she demonstrated.
"all the dirty work" - quote needs attribution
It now reads: Her plane was used to fly missions, Streeter recalled, but she was unhappily, relegated to doing … "all the dirty work".
"The qualifications for women who wished to become members of the WR were quite stringent"
To be clear, removed the word quite.
"The wardrobe of the WR was a matter of genuine importance to the Marine Corps..." - this read a bit oddly to me. Why "wardrobe" and not the more conventional "uniform"? And was there any reason think that the Marine Corps wouldn't have an interest in their own uniforms?
My dictionary describes wardrobe as an entire collection of clothes.   As for your other comment, I'd assume no. I believe the corps’ circular of 1943 points to the pride of wearing a Marine Corps uniform.
Most literature appears to talk about Marine Corps uniforms, rather than their wardrobe though. On the second point, if there's no reason to think that the Corps wouldn't be interested in their uniforms, then I'm not sure why the article makes such a prominent reference to it being "genuine" - I'd just remove the point. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
It now reads: The uniforms of the WR were a matter of importance to the Marine Corps, Pendright (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
"along the lines of the men's uniform." > "mens' uniform"?
Now reads "similar to"
"a Khaki trench coat" - "khaki"?
It is a fabric of a dull brownish-yellow in color, made of strong cotton and used especially by the military.
"Slacks of covert material were worn for certain duties" - I'm not sure I know what "covert material" is
Covert cloth is a rugged fabric. It is woven in a twill weave and usually of two colors. Originally, wool, worsted, or a wool/silk blend was used, but covert can be made from manufactured fiber or in a blend with wool or cotton.
Given that covert has several meanings, would advise linking to Covert coat to avoid any confusion. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done Pendright (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
"The WR officer candidates first trained " - unclear if this means that at first they were trained at Smith College, but later some began their training at Mount Holyoke, or if it means they began their training at Smith, and then later in their training went to Holyoke. The "branching out" doesn't necessarily help I think.
It now reads: The WR officer candidates trained at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, a branch of the Navy’s Midshipmen’s School for women officers at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts.
"On 13 March 1943, the first group of 71 Marine officer candidates arrived at the Midshipmen's School, Mount Holyoke College." as per previous, I couldn't work out what the "first" meant here
With the correction of the previous sentence, the first is accurate.
"Cadets who completed the eight-week course " - is this the same as the four-weeks previously mentioned? Unclear.
The eight-weeks was the length of the course. Candidates entered the program as privates. If after four-weeks they met all requirements they became cadets, and remained in the program. Those who did not were separated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:D446:A500:49D:8885:FE51:4A17 (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)  Forgot to sign in! Pendright (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
"interior guard" - I'm not very clear on what this means (guarding the interior of buildings? guard duties in the interior of the US?)
Interior Guard: to preserve order, protect property, and enforce regulations within the jurisdiction of the command.
You'll need to explain this in the article, as most readers won't know this. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done Pendright (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
"WR personnel observed demonstrations..." - does this mean that they weren't trained to use the weapons themselves? If so, worth spelling this out.
 Done
"Assigning jobs in occupations that women had never held before was a daunting task" - for who? (unclear who did the assigning)
Added placement personnel
" Director Streeter" - why Director, and not Colonel? (unless there's a specific reason, would expect this to be consistent)
 Done
"might necessitate a trip back to the states" - for non-US readers, would suggest "back to the mainland" (most readers will think of Hawaii as a state)
 Done
"Colonel Towle" - you then give her full name later in the paragraph...
corrected
"the second director of the wartime WR" - I don't think I understand the distinction here. Why isn't she simply "the second director of the WR"? (similarly for the third)
 Done
"Women of the WR..." - this section seemed really odd. The first paragraph looks like it should really be in the recruitment section above; the "A few of their comments are listed below, showing how they coped with life in the military..." bit then feels strange; it is unclear why they were selected - I don't think they're working well in this format.
<> The info relating to recruiting transferred to that section.Pendright (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
<> Deleted info about how they coped with... Pendright (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
<> Transferred image of Native American women to Camp Lejeune where it was taken. Deleted second image. Pendright (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
<> Transferred info on WR casualties to the section on Assignments.
<> As a result of corrections made, only two paragraphs remain - both cf a  congratulatory nature. Renamed section Recognition.Pendright (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
"The women Marines of World War II received its share of accolades." - what does this actually mean?
Removed all such language. Pendright (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
"One stood out more than any other," - stands out to whom?
Removed all such language. Pendright (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
"it was the uncomplicated words of General Holcomb" - I'd lose the "uncomplicated"; you need to date this remark.
 Done
Your comments seem to suggest that this section is unnecessary and should probably be scrapped, with any useful items placed elsewhere. In any event, I’d appreciate your thoughts before proceeding. Pendright (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

I'd query whether the section labelled "Ruth Cheney Streeter" might be better retitled "Leadership"? (which would be more in keeping with equivalent articles on men-only units etc.)
 Done
"Mrs. Ruth Cheney Streeter" and similar examples - as per the MOS, these should be "Ruth Cheney Streeter" etc.
 Done
"it did not engender the famed Marine esprit de corps that was expected" - I'd lose the "famed" here, it feels a bit OTT
 Done
" What did not change from the time at Mount Holyoke and Hunter was the shoddy behavior of the drill instructors towards the women." - worth looking at a more neutral alternative to "shoddy", e.g. "hostile".
 Done
See also section - you need to scrub these links to make sure they're not being used above (some certainly are)
 Done
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

"and soon won over most of their detractors" - the cited phrase in the main text is "won over many of their detractors" ("most" not being the same as "many")
Many
"p. 88–89" - you have a few "pp"s missing in places.
 Done
(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

The lead needs to mention the demobilisation of the WR. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 Done
The lead also needs to tell the reader how large the WR was.
 Done
Worth having a look at "Underdogs: The Making of the Modern Marine Corps" by Aaron B. O'Connel, Harvard (2012) (should on Google Books). He highlights that during the war, most male Marines wouldn't have come into contact with the WR (due to where they were all posted), and draws out a bit more about the immediate anti-female response to the WR's integration in 1948.
Thank you for bringing Underdogs to my attention.
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Broadly neutral, as far as I can tell from the sources. I'm conscious that most of the sources seem to draw directly or indirectly on the first Director's memoirs though. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; 

File:Ruth Cheney Streeter.jpg needs a fair use rationale. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll need your help on this one.
I'm still in doubt about this, so I'm asking for your help! Pendright (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
For help, I’ve consulted two long-time editors on the matter: they believe the image is in the pubic domain. Pendright (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article. Except for questions about the Women of the WR section and the fair use of the Streeter image, I believe I have responded to all deficiencies noted, questions asked and comments made. I look forward to your reply. Pendright (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pendright and Hchc2009: Hi everyone! What is the status of this review? It looks like no progress has been made in the past couple of weeks.--Dom497 (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: I’ve just finished responding to your most recent set of questions/comments posted 14 January 2018. I believe I’ve touched all the bases you were concerned with, except for the Ruth Cheney Streeter image. I hope you can find the time to assist me with this! Your review was tough but fair.  I leaned some things from it, thanks.Pendright (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Hchc2009:: With my response to your Streeter image comment, all things asked have been answered. I look forward to answering any further questions you might have. Pendright (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dom497 and Hchc2009:: Hopefully, a decision will soon be made on this GA review.  Someone is trashing the article with things that are not relative to it. My note on the talk page explains why WW II is the subject here, not WW I.  Pendright (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pendright, as discussed, I've had a read through. Most of my points are only suggestions so please ignore any you don't agree with. I look forward to watching the ACR which I'm sure will comfortably pass. Let me know if any of my notes need clarifying...
Lede

major and later was promoted to - 'was' not necessary
<> Removed
sworn in with the rank of major - refine
wlink to Major (United States)

<> Done
promoted to a full colonel - refine wlink to Colonel (United States)
<> Done
nicknames were used to describe the women - just the women or also the reserve itself
<> Changed the women to its members
military during WW II - no space in abbreviation ie should be WWII?
<> Done
two years of college
apostrophe ie years'

<> Done
two years of work experience - ditto
<> Done
two years of high school - ditto
<> Done
across the continental United States - is 'the' normal?
<> I believe it is! As you know, according to Hoyle, the language has two articles, the definite article (the) and the indefinite article (a & an). The  (definite article) is used to refer to specific or particular nouns, the case in point, a & an (indefinite article) used for non-specific or non-particular nouns. Or, did I miss the point?
I think it's just a usage thing. Eg, I'm used to hearing "flying to continental Europe" or "to the continent", or, down here, "across mainland Australia" or "across the mainland". No problems, all make sense! :)
<> Okay! I should add that not everyone embraces the idea, but  it makes sense to me.
including New York, Chicago, Parris Island, South Carolina, and El Centro and San Diego, California. - states for only some? It reads as if NY and Chicago are in South Carolina. Maybe pipe away the South Carolina and California? Or add other states?
including New York, Chicago, Parris Island - including 'in' or 'at'?
<>Added state and at
with some degree of resentment and crude language - by whom, other marines? Surely not public?
<> Added by whom
competence, self-assurance, and pride and soon won - move last comma to after pride?
had been opposed to having women serve in the Marine Corps in the beginning - I would put 'initially opposed' or 'had been opposed from the beginning' rather than 'in the beginning' at end of sentence
<> Both done
Background

The Corps delayed formation of the WR - insert Marine before Corps
<> Done
was commissioned a captain. Lentz - refine captain wlink
<> Done
and attended Bryn Mawr College for two years - wlink
<> Done
20 years of active civic work - years'
<> Both done
director of the WAVES, Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Services. - move acronym to end in brackets ie (WAVES)?
<> Done
In the Free a Marine to Fight publication - if a pubn should be italics?
<> Publication is my word, because there was no other description I could find. One website that has it available, calls it a pamphlet. The dictionary describes a pamphlet as “a small booklet or leaflet containing information or argument on a single subject.”  And is the case here. It has 41 page of text on 8 x 12 sheets of paper.  The short answer is I don’t know, but since the question seems open to argument – it should stand as is.
all qualities she demonstrated - can be ambiguous, is it confirming what Stremlow is saying about Streeter or is it saying qualities she herself (Stremlow) had?
<> It is, removed
In 1940, she believed the United States - swap she for Streeter
<> Done
earned a commercial pilots license. - pilot's
<> Done
Ruth Cheney Streeter died - should be just Streeter
<> Done
Recruiting

height not less than 60 inches; - add conversion template to cm
<> Done
weight not less than 95 pounds - add conversion template to kg
<> Done
at least two years of high school - apostrophe ie years'
two years of college - ditto
two years of work experience - ditto
<> Done, all three
Later, the wives of enlisted marines - this is the only mention of marines without a capital M
<> Done
Nemacolm, Pennsylvania - should be Nemacolin and wlink
<> Done, sp & link
Lucile E. McClarren  - add date?
<> Done
WR was Minnie Spotted-Wolf - add in july 1943?
<> Done
strong drawing card - drawcard?
<> In our venacuar, drawing card is spot on
fashioned by the WAC, Waves, or SPARS - wlink WAC or should be WAAC per Lentz? Make Waves all caps
<> Corrected spelling and linked WAC. The WAAC was changed to WAC by the congress in May 1943, so WAC should stand.
Jane Tailor's - Taylor's
<> Done
Johnstown, Fayette County, Pennsylvania; - are there 2 Johnstowns in Penn or possibly Stremlow has the County wrong ie Johnstown, Pennsylvania?
<> Johnstown is correct, it's a city in PA and Fayette a County in PA. Johnstown is not in Fayette County. They were separated by a comma, now an and -  both now linked.
Captain Charlotte D. Gower;  - wlink if this woman Charlotte Gower Chapman?
<> It's a match, nice work!
six months of service - months'
<> Done
Uniforms

a Khaki trench coat - khaki ie no capital needed
<> Done
chevrons were green, and emblems were bronze - maybe remove the 2 'were'
<> Done
the gloves were white, and the handbags were light green - maybe remove the 2 'were'
<> Done
may be good to link some terms eg chevrons, khaki, muffler, rubbers (Wellington boot?), seersucker, palm-beach material (is that a colour or a fabric?), pumps
<> Done - definition of palm beach material to follow!
<> A description of the term palm-beach material or cloth does not seem to exist, whether searching on Wikipedia or Google.
If you are not aware, Palm Beach is a city in south Florida, known for its tropical weather.
From experience, I know the term – palm beach - is often used to mean clothing of lightweight material that is worn in a warm climate.  I replaced palm-beach with ‘a similar'.
Yeah I figured it'd be casual lightweight beachwear resort wear etc (functional for the climate like the cool loose Hawaiian shirts). I was curious if it was a colour named after the sand at PB but I couldn't find it on Google either.
Okay! Pendright (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Neither officers nor enlisted members had dress uniforms. - insert 'winter' before dress for emphasis (seeing there were dress uniforms for summer)
<> Done
short sleeve, matching shirt - short-sleeved? (to be consistent with 'One was a short-sleeved blouse' above)
> <> Done

long-sleeve jacket - as above
<> Done
peanut suit, so called because of its colored appearance. - just 'so called because of its color'?
<> done
"wore the peanut suit, just so-called because of its colored appearance" - Whoops, I didn't mean to add 'just'.  I meant "wore the peanut suit, so-called because of its color
USMCWR in ACR status now - reviewer did not like so-called, so it is now so named. Yes! Pendright (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
A-lined skirt - just A-line ie no
<> Done
Training

Smith College in Northampton - wlink?
<> Done
combat; use of mortars; bazookas; flame-throwers; an assortment of guns; and landing craft - i think these should just be commas if all only demonstrations
<> Done
Assignments

6 as unaccounted for - remove 'as'? and maybe should be spelled ie six?
<> Done
Accidents

died when the automobile they were riding in was demolished by - died when their automobile was hit by
<> Done
Laville was posthumous cited - posthumously (or as that US usage?)
<> Done
Demobilization

The task of demobilization fell to - maybe start this sentence with "At the end of the war,...
<> Done
Captions

top pic, A Marine Corps Wmen's Reserve recruiting poster during World War II - typo Women's
<> Done
Ruth Cheney Streeter pic, Marine Corps Woman's Reserve during World War II - typo Women's
<> Done
Three Native American... Minnie Spotted Wolf  - last name should be hyphenated
<> Hyphen not required
Ah, I suggested hyphen to be consistent with what you have in prose ie "was Minnie Spotted-Wolf of Heart Butte, Montana".
Sorry, added - Pendright (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Private First Class Pricilla Goodrich (left) and Private Elaine Munisinger - typos Priscilla and Munsinger
<> Done
Bibliography

National Archives ... Archives Tust Fund Board - Trust?
<> "Published for the National Archives and Records Administration, by the National Archives Trust Fund Board" ?
Sorry, I was alluding to the missing 'R' ie Tust --> Trust
Oh! - Pendright (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Refs spaces to remove

enlisted women. [25]
remainder of World War II. [36]
other crude references.[39] [40]
<> Corrected, I think?
just meant to remove spaces before [25] and [36] and the one between [39] and [40].
Okay - Pendright (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
That's it. This isn't an actual review so pls don't feel need to reply to each comment. Thanks for such a fine, interesting and educative article! Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

<> @JennyOz:
It has taken me more time than I had thought to answer all of your comments but, hopefully, I have. Thanks for an objective, thorough, and instructive (not actually a) review. If this wasn’t an actual review, then I shudder to picture what an actual one might look like.  I hope, one day, I’ll have the opportunity to return the favor. In the meantime, be well and stay in touch. Wait, one more favor to ask!  You’ve worked over this article as well as that of the WAVES, which, in your opinion, is a cut above the other?  If you choose to decline, it’s no problem. Again, thank you. Pendright (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Two I missed earlier...
heading Accidents - no doubt there were many other accidents, machinery injuries etc. Do you think this heading should be "Fatal accidents" or even "Fatalities"? Reviewers might have an opinion.
Fatal is apt here - Pendright (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
caption Mount Holyoke - needs capital W for women's
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I have also added few last tiny replies above to clarify my too brief initial comments.
I've responded to each Pendright (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for those. I'm heading to review now. JennyOz (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm..., as for which is better? I have a soft spot for this one because I 'met' Corinne here. I was looking forward to working with her. On the other hand I reckon the WAVES acronym is 'fun'. As for content etc, I'll have a think when this one is out of my head. But I will say I think both are excellent. (And they are both a cut above millions of others - way, way above!) I'm continually in awe with the comprehensive, well-written articles you and others produce. One day I'll try writing more but in meantime I enjoy helping where I can. As long as it's more a help than hindrance:) Have a wonderful weekend. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia guidelines, the date format should be changed to American for this article about the U.S. Military. Why is this being reverted? Stappitalist (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

For most U.S. military articles on Wikipedia, the date format is DMY. However, there are military articles, particularly biographies, that do use a MDY format. The reason I reverted your edits is from Wikipedia:MILFORMAT
   If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
   The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
   Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor". 

You are not the first major contributor. That being the case, I reverted your edits. Please check other U.S. related military topics. You will find an abundance of articles that use the DMY format. For instance: United States Marine Corps, USS Enterprise (CVN-65), or 1st Infantry Division (United States). Cuprum17 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)