Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/24th Infantry Division (United States)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:49, 13 September 2009 [1].

24th Infantry Division (United States)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because it is an A-class article and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. —Ed!(talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both issues. —Ed!(talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Ed!(talk) 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nice job. I tweaked it a bit for punctuation, and so that details can be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images. Eubulides (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • In the lede, what are the "other disbanding units" it was formed from? No units are listed to be others from, if that makes sense.
  • In the lede, you might want to clarify from where and to where it was withdrawn during the Korean War.
  • According to my copy of Webster's, "post-war" should be written as one word, no hyphen.
  • The assertion that the Americal division, etc. were the last named divisions isn't covered in the Globalsecurity cite.
    • Removed that detail since I couldn't find a ref for it. —Ed!(talk) 16:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned that the information about the "one post" concentration is copied directly from Globalsecurity. Even with the citation, it bothers me.
  • For the phrase "manned at higher levels", is that rank or numbers of personnel?
  • Triangular Division TO&E really needs to be explained, either in a footnote, parenthetical aside, or child article like the other TO&Es.
  • In the fourth paragraph of the Hawaiian Division section, were all three regiments from the Hawaiian National Guard, or just the last one?
  • Phrases like "July of 1942" should be "July 1942" for simplicity's sake. There are a few of these.
    • Are there any more of these? I think all of them are gone. —Ed!(talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got tense shifting going on between past perfect and simple past tense ... in the first paragraph of the World War II section, forex, you switch from "would be" to "was" and back (fixed now, see diff). For simplicity's sake, I'd suggest just using "was" or "were" throughout the article.
    • Is there anywhere else where the tense isn't consistent? —Ed!(talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the Leyte map caption isn't a complete sentence.
  • The article alternates between using a comma after years. Forex, there's things like "October 4, 1944," and "October 4, 1944" throughout the article. Pick one and stick with it.
  • I know what the expression "mopping up" means, but it's a bit jargony. Can you wikilink it, explain it in a footnote, or a parenthetical phrase?
  • In the sentence "Divisional elements effected a landing on Marinduque Island", is that elements of the 24th or another division?
  • "under the hot sun on a well-defended Rock" is poetic, but pretty unencyclopedic. Did the heat affect the unit's performance, and/or can it be cited?
  • The "Five days later" in Task Force Smith doesn't say what it's five days after ... I assume after the president's order, but no date was given in the preceding paragraph.
    • The first sentence of the preceeding paragraph states "June 25." —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain the "Kansas Line and Utah Line"?
    • Clarified that they are just lines of defense. —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "above Osan" isn't really precise ... which direction "above" the town?
  • I'm unclear about the phrase "for the first month" ... when does that month start -- with the arrival of TF Smith, the main body of the division, or something else?
  • Citation 82 looks like it's doing something funky with the external link.
    • I can't seem to figure out what's wrong. Any ideas? —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason for the duplicate ISBN identifiers in the sources section?
  • What sort of equipment did the division use before the Gulf War? Even if it's only the standard U.S. Army stuff for each period, stating so would be helpful (if a citation can justify it, of course).
  • In the infobox, it's mentioned as being active through 1970, but the article mentions a deactivation in 1958.
    • Clarified. The division was only deactivted and reactivated in an organizational sense; in reality it was only moved. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation No. 2 doesn't appear to cover the assertion that the division was inactivated in 2006. It only shows the 1999 reactivation.
    • Replaced with a better ref. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinking active duty, Army Reserve and Army National Guard in the training command section is odd, since all three appear earlier in the article. What's the reason?
  • Nicely cited, illustrated, and structured. I'll give the article a full readthrough when I get a chance. I've given the article a readthrough and made some changes. Don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions, concerns, comments, or just want to let me know that I screwed something up. (That happens quite a bit. The screwing up part, not the letting me know about it part.) JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've addressed all of your points. Thank you for your thorough review. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good stuff. Three more comments:
  • On citation 82, I tried fixing it too, but couldn't get it to work. Looks as though the template is misfiring. I suggest just killing the template and using a plain-text solution formatted like the end result of the template.
    • Actually I just figured out what was wrong, the link ommitted the "http://" so the software didn't recognize it. —Ed!(talk) 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide page numbers for citations 27 and 28 and an ISBN/ASIN for No. 28?
  • I'm not clear on citation 86 ... is a title missing from that?
  • That's about it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is an excellent article with adequate prose and high-quality citations that appears to cover the subject in detail. All of my concerns and questions have been addressed, so there's no reason I can't support its listing as a featured article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:MOSDASH, indeed the MilHist style guide, for the spacing of en dashes in date ranges (infobox).
  • "... driving Japanese forces from them at the end of the war. The division then participated in post-war patrol operations ...". Which word has to go?
  • Link to "Chinese"—can you find a section or more specific article to link to? Or perhaps no link. Same with "North Korean"—the readers shouldn't be diverted to stuff about Kim Il whatever that fascist is called, in modern times. This is historical stuff. Is there a history section in North Korea? And instead of [[Japan]]ese, perhaps a section of History_of_Japan? And here's a disambig. page for Japanese_military, including Military history of Japan, which might give ideas. Please make the links as specific as you can; the added utility for our readers is significant.
  • Gulf War—first or second? Readers shouldn't have to hit the link to learn which.
    • Switched to Persian Gulf War, as the article says that it has been called both the First and Second Gulf wars, according to different sources. —Ed!(talk) 21:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you audit for "then", which is often unnecessary.
  • Comma before "but" at the end of the lead.
  • The red links aren't a deal breaker, but they don't add to the visual appearance in the Hawaiin Division section. You could stub them to turn them blue, or unlink them ... or keep them.
    • I feel strongly that each of the four redlinked units at the beginning of the article are notable and deserving of their own articles. I will create them when I have time. —Ed!(talk) 21:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Te Leyte map will send me blind. Can it be bigger please? In fact I've lashed out and boosted it; please see whether it's too big now. Could even be 400px and centred. Why not? Shock us with the pic of the soldier, please. It's important to the impact of the article.
    • The resized images look good to me. Thanks. —Ed!(talk) 21:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's rather well written. Nice. I'll try to return in a day or two. Tony (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe I'm crazy, but the information on the division's creation seems a bit thin. Why was the Hawaii Division reformed? Staxringold talkcontribs 05:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing comments - before that, why is there a 55k article with only a 2 paragraph lead? ;/ That first "paragraph" needs expansion before it can count as one. :P Also, that info box is overwhelmingly wide. Is there anyway to trim the width by 5 pixels or so?
  • That's not my infobox. It's a standard Military Unit infobox, so I have no control of its size. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. "It was activated under the Square Division Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) on February 25, 1921 as the Hawaiian Division at Schofield Barracks, Oahu." Was not found in This source. The source does cite the first sentence in the section. Also, this source says "Activated 1 March 1921 at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii", which is 4 days after what our article says. This should be fixed or found in a new source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. "As the US Army withdrew from Vietnam and reduced its forces, the 24th Infantry Division and its three brigades were inactivated on April 15, 1970 at Fort Riley" This is a lot more detail in the source, and a better source could probably be found to cite this line. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. "as part of the program to build a 16-division US Army force." This justification is not found in the source, and, like for 2, could probably be cited to a much better source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. "As part of the Army's reduction to a ten-division force" - same as 2 and 3. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. "but with no subordinate divisional units" Not in the source, as the source doesn't mention subordinate divisions. You might want to just cut the end or cite this last clause to another source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the end out. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. "The 24th Infantry Division was awarded five campaign streamers and two unit decorations in World War II" The five campaign streamers I can see. I don't see two unit decorations for WWII (only one from what I can see - "Philippine Presidential Unit Citation for 17 OCTOBER 1944 TO 4 JULY 1945"). Perhaps one of the others is something for WWII and I just can't tell, if so, then ignore this as it would all check out (the total math checks out). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a typo. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. "The entire Hawaiian Division was concentrated at a single during the next few years, allowing it to conduct more effective combined arms training. It was also manned at higher personnel levels than other divisions, and its field artillery was the first to be motorized" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Source - "Unlike most divisions in the continental United States, the 24th was concentrated on one post during the interwar years, which enabled it to conduct more effective combined arms training. It was also manned at higher levels than other divisions, and its field artillery was the first to be motorized" - A few things. The article ends at "a single" and is missing a word. The "which enabled it to conduct more effect combined arms..." needs to be rewritten to distance it from the source. Simple fix. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. "Its brigade headquarters was disbanded and the 27th and 35th Infantry regiments were assigned to the new 25th Infantry Division" I could not find this in the source. Move the current citation forward and add a citation for this. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. "replacing the 11th Airborne Division in a reflagging ceremony" - that makes it sound like the 11th Airborne was just performing reflagging ceremonies. :) Perhaps "replacing... after a reflagging ceremony" or something else to that effect. By the way, I could not find a reflagging ceremony in this source. Please cite it to one that discusses it. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. "The 24th was organized under the Pentomic Division TO&E, in which its combat forces were organized into five oversized battalions" I could not find this in the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Article - "Targeted for a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) role, the 24th Division was reorganized as a mechanized division in 1979"
11. Source - "Targeted for a NATO role, the division was reorganized as a mechanized infantry unit in 1979." Please rewrite this to distance it from the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Article - "In fall 1994, Iraq again threatened the Kuwaiti border, and two brigades from the division returned to southwest Asia" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Source - "In the fall of 1994 Iraq again menaced the Kuwaiti border, and two brigades from the division returned to Southwest Asia. " Please rewrite this to distance it from the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Article - "From 1999 to 2006, the 24th Infantry Division consisted of a headquarters and three separate National Guard brigades; the 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team at Clinton, North Carolina, the 218th Heavy Brigade Combat Team at Columbia, South Carolina, and the 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in Macon, Georgia" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Source - "On June 5, 1999, the 24th Infantry Division [...] consists [...] headquarters at Fort Riley and three enhanced separate brigades: 30th Heavy Separate Brigade at Clinton, North Carolina, 218th Heavy Separate Brigade at Columbia, South Carolina, and the 48th Separate Infantry Brigade in Macon, Georgia." I know this is a list but it would be nicer to try and get this further from the source. Perhaps just mentioning how many Brigades without the location and without their numbering? Or just end it at "three enhanced separate brigades" with a small mention of it being the first to integrate National Guard units. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trust you to make the above changes and to go through and try to summarize and paraphrase better. I will check back by the end of the week and see how the work goes. I hope to be able to support. By the way, I merely spot checked some of the sources. I will spot check again with additional sources checked when I look back in to see how everything has progressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry that the work has gone so slowly, but I haven't had a lot of spare time lately. I will strive to make all of the improvements that you have suggested. —Ed!(talk) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending resolution of above-mentioned image issue. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/24th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)/archive1&oldid=1136099147"