Talk:47th Infantry Regiment (United States)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 06:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I will review the article following its nomination for GA. Initial observations/comments to follow shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments/observations: G'day, lots of great information in the article, and it is well referenced overall. I have done some copy editing earlier, and think that it will need a little more work in that area if you are wanting to take it to A-class. Beyond that, though, I have the following initial observations/comments. If you can cover off on these, I will take another look. Thank you: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • are there any images of the regiment's soldiers during the Great War that might be relevant?
  • is there any more detail that can be provided about the regiment's actions during World War I? Currently, the section looks very small compared to the others
  • per the above, the Great War section probably should mention when and where it was constituted and organised, and potentially when it embarked for overseas etc
    • this source might have something (unfortunately I can't see all the pages, though, in Australia): [1] AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know who commanded the regiment during the Great War?
    • The article mentions a major commanding the regiment during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, are we sure of this? Is it more likely that Stevens commanded one of its battalions? The cited source says "The assault battalion of the 47th Infantry Regiment, commanded by MAJ James Stevens...", which leads me to believe it is referring to him commanding a single battalion, not the whole regiment (which would likely have been a full colonel's position, I think?) AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I have been able to find only online, I have not so far been able to find more detailed write ups of who commanded and what the regiment did during the Great War other then the generalities I have provided thus far, to include images in the public domain of the regiment during the Great War. I have added that Middleton finished the Great War in command of the regiment, but have not so far found who commanded the regiment prior to him. I looked at the source that was linked above, and it did not contain information about the regimental commanding officers for the subject of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for looking. I hope that there will eventually be more that can be added here, but if you have exhausted your sources, I'm happy with that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: found a little more, and added it to the article. This should be it as the law of diminishing returns are coming to play with additional searches for new sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest adding a topic sentence to the Present-day section explaining that the regiment currently consists of two battalions; the lead could probably also mention this
    • This has been dealt with. I have added a quick mention to the lead -- please check you are happy with this addition. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the World War II section should mention the date and location of activation
  • "The regiment took part in Operation Blackstone in North Africa, where it fought against Vichy French forces during an amphibious landing": date for this?
    • This has been done. 07:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Remaining in Sicily after..." suggest splitting the paragraph here
  • "the regiment conducted a +200 miles (320 km) foot march" --> "the regiment conducted a foot march of more than 200 miles (320 km)"
  • "trained and relaxed"? Not sure the relaxation deserves a mention here
  • the current structure of the article means that there is a gap in the narrative, for instance the inter war and Cold War periods do not really get covered in narrative form -- I think this could be rectified quiet easily by changing the "Combat chronicle" section into a full "History" section, expanding it to explain some of the details in the lineage section
  • what is MCoE TRADOC? Perhaps spell this out in full and explain it a little more
    • The abbreviation has been spelt out, but I would suggest making it clear what the 2d Battalion's assigned role is in this section (like you have for the 3d Battalion) AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link cadre to Cadre (military)
  • per WP:MILPOP -- is the popular culture section truly necessary? Do the sources explain that this is a signficant mention, or just confirm that exists?
  • some works display surnames first, and others don't. For instance compare "Howe, George F" with "Earl R. Beck" and "Andrew Wiest" (there are others)
  • "BERNAN ASSOC" -- probably should be decapped per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • same as above for the Decorations section
  • "Texas A&M University Press. pp. 98–" -- missing end value in the page range
  • the motto appears to be uncited in the infobox, although potentially it could be mentioned in the body of the article
  • "commanded by Colonel Patch" -- full name and link on first mention
  • "commanded by Colonel Randle" -- same as above
  • "with the regiment, Colonel Smythe" -- same as above
  • "American Soldiers" -- "American soldiers" per MOS:MILTERMS
  • "with Soldiers deploying from Navy" same as above
  • given that Hagel is only loosely connected with the 47th, I wouldn't suggest including his link in the See also section
  • inactivation or deactivation?
  • "the regiment's 4th battalion" or "the regiment's 4th Battalion"?
  • " the regiment's 3rd battalion" or "the regiment's 3rd Battalion"?
  • are there any additional categories that might be relevant to put the article in?
  • the current commanders are listed in the infobox, but appear to be uncited - they could probably also be mentioned in the Present day section if considered important
  • "upcoming riverine mission... upcoming deployment" -- is there a way to vary the language a little here?
  • infantry basic training is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body (is this the same as one station unit training?)
I have began to make the changes requested above, but am not quiet finished. Still have to find sources to expand upon peacetime history Post-World War II.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for making a start. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • slightly inconsistent "3d" or "3rd" (both appear in the article). AustralianRupert (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the regimental lineage section -- does this information relate to the regiment as a whole, or just its 3d Battalion? The ref implies it is just the single battalion. This ref might be more relevant to the regiment as a whole: [2]? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lineage changed to be non-battalion specific.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Back when the source was accessed globalsecurity.org was an often referenced military reference site. Since then multiple discussions about the source have been held at RSN, including but not limited to this one, and this one. Based on those discussions the opinion of the website are mixed. That said the item can be verified using other sources rather than the website which object has been raised.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 11:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should be done.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Your changes look good. If you are looking to take the article to ACR, my only suggestion would be to potentially ask for a copy edit at WP:GOCE first. Anyway, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

1. Well written: checkY

a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: checkY

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
c. it contains no original research; and
d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: checkY

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. checkY

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute checkY

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: checkY

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:47th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)/GA1&oldid=910623714"