Talk:1st Provisional Marine Brigade/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll review this article today. Reviewer: Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions

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"
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"for an occupation action in Cuba." - "for occupation duties in Cuba" perhaps?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In July of that year, it was moved for an anticipated invasion of Guam," - where was it moved to?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"On June 21, the 22nd Marines landed on beaches around Agat" - I think you mean July 21
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

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 - [1] 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)[reply]
"Simmons 2003" isn't in the references section
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On what dates was the 1912 iteration of the brigade formed and disbanded?
- The exact days aren't listed in any sources. All I know is months for those. —Ed!^(talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, it can be difficult to find those kind of details, particularly for pre-WW2 units. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One or more photos of the Marines in Iceland could be sourced from 'Outpost in the North Atlantic'
- Done. —Ed!^(talk) 04:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did the 1947 iteration of the brigade just consist of a single battalion? (ie, were any units attached to the battalion?)
- Sources seem to indicate they were just the one battalion, and maybe a larger command element but that's the only difference. —Ed!^(talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the 305th RCT was attached to the brigade for the first three days of the invasion of Guam
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What was the brigade's order of battle in Korea? (ie, what was attached to the 5th Marine Regiment)
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
- Done. But, per the article, these actions are what made the brigade the most notable and thus deserve the most scrutiny. —Ed!^(talk) 04:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- I've done some trimming. —Ed!^(talk) 04:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both the two paras of the 'Deactivation' section cover Walker's objections to releasing the brigade from his command
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I've responded to everything. Thanks for the review! —Ed!^(talk) 04:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]