Talk:III Corps (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article III Corps (United States) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
February 6, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.

OrBat is Incorrect[edit]

The army made the decision to remove all subordinate divisions from Corps when in garrison and make them directly responsible to FORSCOM. Corps only get divisions attached to them when deployed. DocHellfish (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


Sorry, but II Corps is NOT III Armored Corps. They do not have a single lineage, but are - and have always been - two seperate units. Indeed, III Armored Corps became XIX Corps on October 10, 1943.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the first paragraph of this article is totaly incorrect, it mixes up two different corps. Also, most of the stuff written here is copy-paste from the website, thus not following the rules and copyrights.-- (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

4ID is at FT Hood, TX, Not FT Carson, CO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:III Corps (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall the article is good, though I found a couple issues:

  • "On July 18, the attack jumped off, with the force spearheading the French Tenth Army's assault the high ground south of Soissons and cut vital rail lines." Confusing at the beginning (jumped off), reword. Also, should be 'cutting vital..' I think.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "III Corps took the Army's east flank, would protect the flank as the Army advanced to Montfaucon, then Cunel and Romagne." Feels like a word or part of the sentence is missing.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You seem to interchange inactivated and deactivated. I would stick with one (ideally the latter).
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Is the Fort Hood shooting relevant enough to the corps that it could be added in? I'll leave that up to you, I'm not certain either way.
    • I would say so; the victims of the shooting, which gained a significant amount of publicity, were all under III Corps command. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
      • In that case I'd like to see a couple sentences added to the article on it. After that's done I'll pass it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll put this on hold and pass when the issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your points, thank you for reviewing the article. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Everything looks good now, so the article passes GA status. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)