Talk:1st Provisional Marine Brigade
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|1st Provisional Marine Brigade is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 15, 2014.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- This review is transcluded from Talk:1st Provisional Marine Brigade/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This is the first time I've conducted a GA review, so please do point out anything I do wrong!
I've got some suggestions to tighten the article's wording:
- "that existed periodically in World War II and in the Korean War" - this implies that it was formed and reformed several times in each war. I'd suggest something like 'that existed periodically between 1912 and 1950"
- "for an occupation action in Cuba." - "for occupation duties in Cuba" perhaps?
- "In July of that year, it was moved for an anticipated invasion of Guam," - where was it moved to?
- "On June 21, the 22nd Marines landed on beaches around Agat" - I think you mean July 21
- Should File:49th Inf Brigade (Logo Polar Bears).jpg be in the infobox if the brigade only briefly wore this patch? Moreover, it isn't the correct patch -  shows soldiers wearing a patch depicting a polar bear with its head in a different position.
- The image in the box is the brigade's only identifying patch, like other Marine units with similar patches it was abolished in 1947 when the USMC banned patches from its uniforms. As far as I know it is the brigade's only identifying unit insignia. At to the accuracy of the patch itself, it's Wikipedia's official version of the patch, which is identical to the one worn by the British division so I imagine differences aren't intentional. —Ed!(talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Simmons 2003" isn't in the references section
- On what dates was the 1912 iteration of the brigade formed and disbanded?
- One or more photos of the Marines in Iceland could be sourced from 'Outpost in the North Atlantic'
- Did the 1947 iteration of the brigade just consist of a single battalion? (ie, were any units attached to the battalion?)
- It should be noted that the 305th RCT was attached to the brigade for the first three days of the invasion of Guam
- What was the brigade's order of battle in Korea? (ie, what was attached to the 5th Marine Regiment)
- The first para of the Korean War section states that "It became a subordinate unit of the Eighth United States Army under Lieutenant General Walton Walker, who placed it in his reserve" yet the next para states that the brigade was immediately sent to the front lines and became part of a division-sized task force
- Per the definition of a military reserve, the brigade remained not committed to that task force for long, and was instead used to counter contingencies along the front. My sources all state it remained in Eighth Army reserve through the entire battle and in those actions it is most well-known. —Ed!(talk) 04:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The coverage of the Brigade's service in Korea seems much more detailed than the previous periods of its history and at times goes into excessive detail on battles which have their own articles - this material should be trimmed
- The Korean War section also contains substantial text which doesn't cover the brigade at all (for example, the first three paras of the 'First Naktong Bulge' section) - these should be summarized to maintain the article's focus on the brigade.
- Both the two paras of the 'Deactivation' section cover Walker's objections to releasing the brigade from his command
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- Great work Ed, I think that the GA criteria are now met. If you're planning on taking this to A class (and I hope that you are) I'd suggest further expansions of the brigade's pre-Korea history. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
All Marines are infantry, but...
The first sentence states:
"The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade was a Marine infantry brigade of the United States Marine Corps (USMC) that existed..."
Later on, numerous non-infantry units are identified as part of this Brigade in its numerous inceptions. Although all U.S. Marines are considered to be infantry, I recommend that the first sentence be changed to:
"The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade was a United States Marine Corps (USMC) unit that existed..."
to properly reflect that many components in the Brigade were not primarily infantry.
As a former USMC officer with Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) designations in Motor Transport, Infantry and Tanks, I served in numerous Battalion Landing Teams (BLTs) and Marine Amphibious Units (MAUs) that consisted of numerous smaller supporting units around a larger infantry unit.
BTW. I believe Fehrenbach's This Kind of War can be used as a reference that the Brigade was called "The Fire Brigade" as it was used as the reserve for all major North Koreans attacks that threatened to break the Pusan perimeter.
Trivia: At that time, Marines leggings had a green side and a brown side. Marines were often passed the word "green side out" or "brown side out." After several defeats inflicted upon them by the Marine Brigade at Pusan, the North Koreans troops were told to avoid combat with troops wearing leggings. After the U.S. forces learned of us, the Marines were told "no side out," i.e. take the leggings off so the North Korneans would not know they were facing Marines. Fehrenbach mentions this in his book (if I remember correctly).
Nice job on the article!
- Like all infantry units, this one is not 100 percent infantry. Instead, it gets its name because it is an operational unit designed to fight as an infantry unit. Like all units, it needs support forces but that does not change the nature of its job. —Ed!(talk) 05:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, every Marine is a Rifleman, only Marines with the 03 prefix for their MOS are Infantry. I've only heard former Marines who didn't serve in the Infantry try to claim they could do my job in addittion to whatever their MOS was. They sure weren't Infantry when they were riding in a HUMMVEE or smoking and joking in an air cooled office and I was humping 30 miles carrying 3/4 of my body weight in weapons and gear in 100+ degree heat! :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!