Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1st Provisional Marine Brigade/archive1

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 Ucucha 21:55, 2 September 2011 [1].

1st Provisional Marine Brigade

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. It is a GA and has passed a WP:MILHIST A-class review. Everything in the toolbox looks clean. —Ed!^(talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing bibliographic info for Alexander 2001
FN 123: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to confirm links to, or deconflict this from, the 1st Marine Brigade that served in Haiti between 1915 and 1934. The existing 1st Marine Brigade mentions no links to that organization, and I've seen sources that referred to it as the provisional brigade.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After some looking I'm rather confused about this myself. There is only a source or two that mentions the provisional brigade in Haiti, but the other info I have found seems to indicate it is referring to what is now the 3rd Marine Brigade. —Ed!^(talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was the issue I found as well. "Mars Learning" makes clear reference to a 1st Provisional Brigade in Haiti, with a 2nd Brigade later appearing in the Dominican Republic. You'll want to deconflict that somehow, I think, in this article.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find that source...could you point me in the right direction? —Ed!^(talk) 13:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Learning is a study of the development of the Marine Corps' small wars doctrine. The chapter on Haiti mentions the 1st Provisional Brigade.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I figured it out, and it's still very confusing. According to The United States Marine Corps: A Chronology, 1775 to the Present, the latest book on USMC history, the "1st Marine Brigade" and the "1st Provisional Marine Brigade" were different units. The 1st and 2nd Marine Brigades on Haiti and the Dominican Republic were permanent establishments, and in 1941 the 1st and 2nd Marine Brigades became the 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions (the lineage carried through, so they are considered the same unit) and in 1960 the 2nd Provisional Marine Brigade became the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade was never activated again after 1950. —Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Haiti and Dominican Republic units were referred to as the 1st and 2nd "Brigade of Marines" and while they may have "(Provisional)" attached at the end, this is a modifier, not an identifier. The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade was always referred to as such. —Ed!^(talk) 16:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mars Learning" has it cited as 1st Provisional Brigade, which was why I was thinking a deconflict of some sort might be in order. Just my take, though.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified the article to reflect this. —Ed!^(talk) 17:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! No major concerns on my end.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:49th_Inf_Brigade_(Logo_Polar_Bears).jpg: on what source was this image based?
- Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:1st_Provisional_Marine_Brigade_in_Iceland.jpg - source link returns 404 error
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:NDS_3B.PNG: is a more specific source available?
- Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ [from Sturmvogel 66]

As an article about an American military unit, all dates should be dmy.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean? using them to pile up 20 amphibious vehicles of the 22nd Marines
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the 305th RCT was an organic part of 77th ID, shouldn't this be rephrased? The 305th Regimental Combat Team supported the Marines for several days before moving under the command of the 77th Infantry Division
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd and 3rd paras in the Guam section seem to have a lot of overlapping material.
- I don't see that. Para 2 concerns the plan and the lead-up, para 3 concerns day one of the battle. —Ed!^(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, I meant the 3rd and 4th paragraphs.
    - Trimmed and merged them. —Ed!^(talk) 19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't the 1st Brigade's troops transferred to the 6th Marine Division, rather than redesignated?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording of the sources I have seen indicates they were redesignated. —Ed!^(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, since they probably took the number of their higher HQ, it was probably both and that's how I'd phrase it because redesignated says nothing about coming under another unit's command.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a particular H&S should be treated as a proper noun ("Headquarters and Service Company, 248th Engineering Combat Battalion"), but whenever you can say "a" such-and-such, that's usually not a proper noun, so I'll lowercase; it's lowercased in a lot of ghits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good. Your copy edits look great. —Ed!^(talk) 15:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks much. After some reflection, I'm rewriting that as a proper noun. The issue here is that the military loves capital letters, and they can be useful for making otherwise unreadable strings of nouns readable ... so when possible, I'll try to compromise between Chicago and common military usage. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent with dates: 27 June, 7 December. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected all of the dates to D/M/Y format. —Ed!^(talk) 14:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"substantially changed morale": in what way? - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Guam. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's rather odd to think that a provisional brigade has a lineage.
I find the references to "5th Marine Regiment" rather disconcerting. The more normal form is "5th Marines", "305th Infantry" and so on.
- In the past I've found non-military types find that very confusing. Past GA reviews have brought up the debate of just why a 1st Infantry Brigade or a 1st Infantry Division is not "1st Infantry." Having both makes it clear. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st Marine Brigade, however, was considered a separate unit lineage delete "however"
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's "United States" and sometimes "U.S." I would get rid of the latter
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
by the end of the year had been moved to the Guadalcanal Campaign This reads awkwardly, because Guadalcanal campaign is not a place. Consider "sent to the South Pacific to participate in the Guadalcanal campaign"
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Iceland section is very good, but the following section on the Battle of Guam is not so good. Considering that it lasted as long as Naktong, and was more costly, I would expect this section to be larger, or the Korean one to be smaller (larger would be much preferred though) to keep the article balanced. The brigade did after all earn a Navy Unit Commendation.
- Did some expanding of that section. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Provisional Marine Brigade units were redesignated and transferred to the command of the 6th Marine Division. Actually, the major units, the 4th and 22nd Marines, were not redesignated. Consider rewording.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The United States military Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered the Marine Corps to ready a 15,000-man division into Korea as a part of the United Nations Command being created there. Delete "United States military" and change "into" to "for duty in"
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On first reading I thought that Craig assumed command in Korea. Actually, he assumed command in the US and flew to Japan while the brigade crossed the Pacific by ship, so he met his command when it arrived.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MacArthur responded by assigning the 17th Infantry Regiment, and later the 65th Infantry Regiment, would be added to Walker's reserves, Something wrong here.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.