Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/24th Infantry Division (United States)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as Promoted - Cam ^(Chat) 05:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24th Infantry Division (United States)

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

Featured article candidates/24th Infantry Division (United States)/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 01:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of minor edits, mainly copyedits. You need to discuss more how the division was assigned to XVIII Corps when it was reformed back in the US and then as part of the RDF. Be sure that all subordinate units are linked; I think I saw some regiments that lacked them. A couple of orders of battle, down to battalion level, would be nice at various times.

There's some contradiction between the Philippine section regarding unit awards and the awards summary at the end. I think the latter is correct, but you need to validate it. Don't rely on the Almanac that you cited, it may be confusing campaign streamers vs. unit awards like the DUC, etc. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support:I have the following comments:

There are no dab links and the external links check out with the tools (I've got no idea about alt text, but you might need to look into that);
The lead could possibly be tightened a little bit? For example in the second sentence, should "created" be replaced with "formed". Also "on New Guinea" with "in New Guinea". Perhaps "Division saw one more mission" could be reworded as it is a bit stilted.

Other than that, I think that the article is up to A class standard. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't spare a moment to provide a detailed report, but I do want to confirm that your images are missing alt text and will need to be fixed before an move to FAC. More to follow later. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As promised, I am back to do the rest of the reviewing :) I make the following findings:
- In the first section both the History and Hawaiian division edit tags are being displaced by something and are as a result showing up next to the template box entitled US 24th infantry. See if you can fix this problem.
  - Do you know anything about this? I've been trying to figure out why this happens but frankly I have no idea. —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I have encountered the problem before. This reason for the displaced edit tabs is directly related to the templates {{US Infantry}} and {{US 24th Infantry Division}}, when these are hidden the edit tabs align correctly. This is a technical problem and is therefore outside my limited capacity to fix beyond suggesting that the templates be removed, which for obvious reasons I am rather loathe to do. My recommendation here would be to take the matter up with someone more technically minded, I am sure we have a message board here (village pump or something to that extent) where you could raise the matter and I know for a fact that we do have a few people in the project with the technical skills to take a look at the problem and at the very least recommend a course of action (Kirill comes to mind off the top of my head). Sorry I can not be of more assistance here :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 21:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll see what I can do... —Ed!^(talk) 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the WWII section its states that the 298 infantry regiment was replaced by the 299 regiment, which in turn was replaced by the 34 infantry regiment, but there is no explanation given as to why the replacements were done in the first place. Were the units needed else where, was the army simply reorganizing, or was the war to blame for the switching out of the regiments?
  - Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well you covered the 34th, but what about the 298 & 299? Was it the same story for them as well?
      - As far as I know, yes. The 298th and 299th were reserve units, which have a limited mandate for deployment. On top of that, the 34th is an active duty unit, which was better trained. —Ed!^(talk) 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the desert shield section, there is mention that the 24th arrived in Saudi Arabia aboard 10 cargo ships, but no mention is made as to the nationality of these ships. Were they civilian ships pressed into to service for the army, vessels from the US Military Sealift Command (ie USNS Bob Hope or similar ships) or were they foreign ships under contract to bring in the 24th?
  - Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alright, then. I'm happy. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. One comment: "shattering all of the Iraqi formations." sounds a bit propagandist, perhaps that phrase could be reworded. – Joe N 01:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Menaced" also sounds a bit too colourful YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both words have been replaced. —Ed!^(talk) 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.