Talk:Cadet Nurse Corps/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 09:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• To participate in the program, nursing schools were required to be state-accredited, affiliated, and approved; most of nursing schools in the United States did so; some odd sentence fragments here and I have to admit I struggled to follow the final part of it. Missing a word?
• I didn't feel the lead adequately summarised the article, for an article of this size I'd expect to see a slightly more substantial lead that covers more of the article content

I have revised and expanded the lead to represent a reasonable summary of the body of the article.

Background

• The need to increase the country's nursing supply was evident before the United States entered World War II.; is there any context to this? Was there a shortage? Any data to explain the statement?

 Done

• At this point, it was clear ; to whom?

 Done

• an advocate of nurses; perhaps "an advocate of nursing"

 Done

Creation

• Representative Bolton; does she need her title after the first use? Conventional style suggests otherwise. (not too fussed about this one, just a comment)

 Done

• student cadets were required to pledge to actively serve in essential civilian or federal government services for the duration of the war; so far the article has been teasing me about the war but not committing. I think this ties back to the background section as well. Although the war is clearly critical to the article subject it's rarely mentioned - i'd in particular expect to see mention of when, in the timeline, the US entered the war and how this affected the demand for nursing etc (there is some content on this but it feels unclear).

Added further content to the beginning of the last paragraph of the Creation section

• Was the pledge legally binding?

No! The cadet pledge was considered a statement of intention rather than a binding contract. See Cadet nurses section – last para

• Senior nursing students; not critical, but is there a specific definition of "Senior"?

Students became senior cadets in the last six months before graduation… See Accelerated training section– first para.

• In return, the federal government would pay the schools for the related tuition and fees of the students.; I read this as in relation only to the previous sentence, is it meant in the broader context?

Only to the previous sentence

• however, each school was required to apply individually; did all of the schools apply? I see numbers below but it might be worth detailing something here too

 Done

Advisory committee

• A suggestion; this paragraph happens immediately after the first paragraph of the previous sentence (timeline-wise) and gives context to the second paragraph of the preceding section. I believe it would sit better between the two.

 Done

Recruitment

• A little bit of repetition, "Appeals", "It", which jarred reading a tad

Replacd

• Applicants were assured they could wear something "frilly and feminine" for dances and they would have time for dating; was this a particular concern associated with nursing (my partner is a trainee nurse so I can absolutely imagine it was!!!) if so is there any context that can be added here?

 Done

• 'i'n the 1945 enrollment period, 3,000 students were admitted to what would be the final class of the program; is that for the whole of 1945? Below you mention that in October 3,000 nurses were admitted?

Question: yes

Comment: The 3,000 is intended for the same enrollment period

Nursing Schools

• Is this content not directly related to the creation of the programme? Last section we were , chronologically, up to 1945 and now we are back to 1943...

Section closed into creation

End

• allowing for an orderly transition; transition to what?

"orderly transition of an important wartime activity".

• Of the 1,300 nursing schools contacted by the Surgeon General, 1,125 participated in the Cadet Nurse Corps; this should be in an earlier section, as mentioned

It is mentioned in the Creation section, last para

• were admitted for the fall term; this wasn't covered in an earlier section.. were the cadets admitted in tranches through the year then?

Over the life of the program, there were three enrollment periods, or fall terms: 1943, 1944, & 1945. Each was mentioned in the last para of the Recruitment section.

• The program was operational from 1943 to 1948, during which time 179,294 student nurses enrolled in the program[24] and 124,065 of them graduated from participating nursing schools.; this sentence was a bit confusing. 116,00 + 3,00 != 179,00 - why the higher number? The dates confused me momentarily too until I realised this was when the nurses who entered the programme in 1945 would finish in 1948, I'd perhaps rephrase it to make this clear (especially as it's implying that nurses enrolled all the way up to 1948, which is in contradiction to the first sentence of this section).

Clarified

Cost

• Short section, I'd merge it with the previous one.

Merged

Education, Cadet Nurses & Uniforms

• Answers a lot of questions from above, consider restructuring the article to incorporate this in earlier sections

Accelerated training and Educational standards: combined into Training section, and moved to my notion of sequential order.

Cadet Nurses & Uniforms: kept sections, but moved again to my notion of sequential order.

Legacy & Acclaim

• Fits with the "End" section, consider restructuring

Legacy: moved to Cadet nurses

Acclaim: moved to Emd

General Comments

Overall I enjoyed the article - it is written in an engaging style and I can't find much fault with the prose itself (certainly it is at GA level). However, the structure of the article led to a lot of confusion for me - with many sections leaving me with questions which then were answered in full by later segments. It felt like two articles in one; the history article giving a brief, incomplete overview of the subject with the remainder of the article rehashing a lot of the content/structure but in more detail. I'd strongly suggest merging sections together to give the article better flow and so the reader doesn't have to hunt for information!

Please feel free to reply in-line. And as I re-read the article I may add additional comments to each section. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have responded to all the deficiencies noted, questions asked, and comments made. If not, I stand ready to continue trying.

Thank you for reviewing the article. Pendright (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good, I will run through the article again later when I get an hour or so free. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]