Talk:100th Infantry Division (United States)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
What the heck is the Von Rundstedt Offensive? And the MoH links are for Vietnam-era citations, not WW2. What does this mean?: when it was pinched out of VI Corps, was assigned to Seventh United States Army as an Echelon Above Corps Asset, and confined its action to patrolling the sector east of Stuttgart. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Von Rundstedt offensive is, as said later in the sentence, the Battle of the Bulge (Von Rundstedt was the general in charge of the German forces). The MoH citations have been replaced with World War II lists, and the section of text you asked about has been reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 15:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section regarding the Bulge should be rewritten. It seems very clunky to refer to the Von Rundstedt offensive and then shortly afterwards the Battle of the Bulge. Combine the two references somehow or reword it to refer to Von Rundstedt as the overall commander for the German offensive. Why do you have the MoH links covering the entire alphabet, when all you need are those covering the division's people? You might also see if you can find any anchors inside the link for the division's people so readers don't have to go hunting for themselves. I swapped your <reference /> tag for the reflist pipe 2 template which put the notes in two columns to save scrolling. Oh, and your edits are bunching up. See WP:MILMOS#NAVPROBLEMS Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of the Bulge section has been rewritten. Von Rundstedt wasn't that important to the article so I just removed references to him to avoid confusion.
MoH links have been trimmed to only the applicable two. Unfortunately I there was no way that I could find to anchor the links.
Edit links fixed using the fixbunching tool.

All isses addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reconsider your habit of citing every distinct fact in favor of doing it once per paragraph by consolidating page numbers if the same source is used. I find so many citations a real distraction, but you aren't wrong in doing so. At any rate, good work. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - The section regarding world war I uses the term Axis Powers, giving a link to the Axis wiki article. The term is inaccurate and should be Central Powers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.129.173 (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]