Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st 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 page.

[edit] 1st Infantry Division (United States)

I nominated this article for A-class because it has historical importance and good content.--Pupster21 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - While it has the makings of a good article it also has some serious flaws at the moment and may have been nominated a bit prematurely. I would say it still needs:

• Expansion of introduction. An explanation of the motto should not account for half of it.
• Overall format is all over the place. The list of commanders are unnecessary. Important commanders should be mentioned in the prose itself. Various lists that break up the article (Interwar years OOB & Assignments in the European Theater of Operations) are best turned onto prose or removed.
• Lacking any inline citations
• De-Army the text...For example I'll say 99.9% of readers do not know what a TO&E,IFOR2 / SFOR1 are...also the prose does not flow. Much of the writing is just "On this day this happened."

I am a bit short on time and these are just initial impressions. I'll add more later. Cheers--Looper5920 18:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - for many of the same reasons. I just added the first inline citation to the article because the existing link was malformed. Also added a link to the term TO&E. It's fair for military jargon to be cited, but it might be better to enumerate some of those elements as a diagram or at least a bulleted list rather than having to read through the TO&E by text. I was somewhat confused as to what happened to the aero squadron that had initially been assigned in 1917, which was missing (apparently) when the unit got to France, even though the division was larger. There could have been links to the first instances of such terms as brigade, regiment, battery, etc., so those unfamiliar with such military units could read more about them. The article also had a propensity to refer to units such as "1-4 CAV." What is that? It should more properly spell out specifically what that unit would be the first time: 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment] (1-4 CAV). Actually there is an article on Wikipedia for the U.S. 4th Cavalry Regiment, which could be linked to, rather than an off-site link to GlobalSecurity.org, though an inline citation could reference the other site. --Petercorless 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm afraid that this article currently doesn't come close to A class, though it is a lot better than most of the articles on US Army divisions. My main concerns are:
  • Much of the article is just lists of commanders and assignments. These should be converted to prose.
  • There's lots of military jargon - eg "World War II Prep", "CONUS", "TO&E", "reconnaissance-in-force". These should be converted into terms a general reader can understand.
  • As noted above, the article needs lots of citations to reach A class. --Nick Dowling 06:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the previous comments, especially concerning the long lists of deployments and units and whatnot. Furthermore, I think that a lot of the sections need some expansion - especially the combat sections (alternatively, if there's nothing more to write they can be merged). But a lot of these short sections can have expension, given that many of them offer no details on operations during the deployment to that area - see: Bosnia/Kosovo and especially 2006 Iraqi Freedom, which I think you can find online media sources on. That said, the article needs many more inline citations, but this has already been mentioned before. JonCatalan 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for much the same reasons as above. Introduction too brief, too many lists (reads difficultly), too much jargon, way too few references for A-class. Arnoutf 14:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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 page.