Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture)/Archive 2

message: Please see the Military Peer Review wherein a discussion on the global nature of the term is discussed.  Per the input there, the attempt to globalize this article is actually detrimental to the article.  There are too many variances between the different cultures to write one for all.  The research is done on American Military Brats and the subculture is really American in nature, thus the advice from the international contributors on Military History Project is to make this into a stronger article dealing with the American Military Brat.Balloonman 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Peer Review

message: Balloonman:
I didn't know I was that well thought of-;) Thanks.
Well, I saw your posts on the FAC and thought your suggestions were solid and worth listening to. 
Re: Military brat (I'm one!)
Ditto... Patch American HS class of 87... 
Why is the homosexual bit in there? All it really says is mil brats may not have a lot of contact with homosexuals. Not that big a deal as I see it. It's like saying "living in Florida, someone may not get to experience snowfall". It just doesn't seem relevant to me. Now if it was shown MBs were more or less likely to become homosexuals, then I'd see it as relevant. While these things can be hard to predict, I think it may get beat up on this on a FAC, but maybe not. We'll see.
The Duty, Honor, Country external jump needs to be a wikilink if it has an article or made a footnote.
Change made 
FN 24 needs to be at the end of the sentence. FNs come after punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence.
Somebody else already moved it. 
Overall, I think this is very well referenced and written. I fixed some minor things for you.
Thank you... the details are where I'm the weakest... I'm a decent writer, but grammar and spelling are my weaknesses... 
Fix the refs that have spaces btwn them and the period (or whatever).
looks like somebody else did it already... I'll check to see if I see any that were missed. 
I'm an MB and I never saw separate Scout troops for O's and E's. Maybe this doesn't occur anymore.
Ditto, I'll make this past tense---I remember my dad (who was also a brat and an eagle scout) told me that that there were two troops when he was in scouts. 
You have no See also?
I had one, but the peer review process said to incorporate the "see also" section into the text, so I killed it. 
WHen it's a FAC, the best way to get it through is to respond quickly to feedback.
I try to... it's only fair that if somebody takes the time to read what I wrote to respond right away. 
I've asked a MILHIST project member to rate it.
Cool, I appreciate it... 
My suggestion: fix my concerns and then list for FA.
Do you think it's ready for FA? 
r/ Rlevse 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review---copied form [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC) talk page

message: Passed. See if you make a stronger tie with the homosexual section to mil brats or cut it. Rlevse 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was cut per your original review... Balloonman 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status

message: Ok, the people on the military history peer review thought "Military Brat" was a good article with a US focus.  They did not like the idea of globalizing it because it would be impossible to adequately cover every country's brats, and to try to extrapolate the research onto non-US brats would introduce bias.  They suggested changing the name of the article to make it clear that we were talking only about US Military Brats.  The article was further criticized on the FAC as it was too US focused.  At that point I changed it to "Military brat {U.S. subculture)."  But I'm not sure if that is the best title.  The other title that I think would be appropriate would be "U.S. military brat."  But I wanted to get the input of other people who watch this page.
:I like "Military brat (U.S. subculture)" -- that says it all. Rlevse 22:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "Military brat (U.S. subculture)" too. Sumoeagle179 23:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that fine, I think. - DavidWBrooks 23:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is a good name.  "U.S. military brat" doesn't really make sense here; the article is about the phenomenon of "military brats" in the U.S., not about some peculiar U.S. variety of military brat. Kirill Lokshin 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... I prefer the "military brat (U.S. subculture)" over "U.S. Military Brat" as well... but wanted to make sure that there wasn't a better option.Balloonman 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the current name.  It is very unlikely that "U.S. Military Brat" would ever be used as a search term.  The parenthetic description makes it clear that it is a U.S. term.  The redirect works for the expected search term "Military brat", so all is well. — ERcheck (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Name

message: You'll have to think about all my changes, though, not just blanket implementation.  The prose overall, imo, is like a string of related facts on a necklace, rather than a free-standing article.  This will need some work to improve it.  You did very well, imo, adding a few changes here and there to move the article from what I perceived as an overwhelmingly negative tone to a more balanced tone that showed the research tended to focus on the negative.
* "A "military brat" (or simply a "brat") is a person whose parent or parents have served in the armed forces."
* --->Is this quite correct?  If my parents served before I was born, would I be a military brat?  I don't think so.  What about reserves?  Are children of reservists who don't deploy other than once a summer and one weekend a month military brats?  I think "military dependent" should be used early on.
**Modified: A "military brat" (or simply a "brat") is a person whose parent or parents served full-time in the armed forces during the person's childhood.
***Oh, much better said than mine.  Clean.  More to come later.  KP Botany 19:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it too difficult to edit extensively details inside the article and maintain the flow of the prose at the same time, so I can only do one or the other at this time.  As I read the article in depth with the intent of posting comments, I will continue with that.  KP Botany 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC lead paragraph