Talk:15th Sustainment Brigade (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 15th Sustainment Brigade (United States) article.
Article policies
Good article 15th Sustainment Brigade (United States) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Photo Cutlines

The photo cutlines are erroneous. The Horse Cavalry Detachment is a part of 1st Cavalry Division, not of 15th Sustainment Brigade as suggested in the cutline. Furthermore, the two people in the second photo are not both Brigade commanders nor are they in Iraq as the cutline may lead you to believe. This is (left) Col. Larry Phelps, commander 15th Sustainment Brigade and Lt. Col Peter Haas, commander of 49th Transportation Battalion a subordinate unit to 15th SB. They are at a ribbon cutting ceremony on Fort Hood,TX Feb. 22, 2008 for the opening of 49th Trans Bat's Class III warehouse, a place for the storage and exchange of Petroleum, oil, and lubricating products. I'm public affairs for this unit and happened on the photo by accident when I did a google search for my name. All of this can be verified at www.army.mil

More information is also available at www.supporttheaction.net the brigade's official website.

Photos are ammended -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 18:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

While this is a "good" article, it does not meet the necessary benchmark for a "Good Article".

  • Although involved in Vietnam (11 decorations in 13 campaigns?), there is ultimately little to no detail about its role in the war, what battles it fought, who led it, etc. Just a table..
  • Missing discussion of individual notable soldiers or commander in the group, if that would apply. (Admittedly unsure)
  • Brigade commanders in photo are not identified (despite nametags), and "a project" is unnecessarily vague.
  • Four paragraphs discuss the remobilization of the Army, not specific to actions of this brigade. Outside of that discussion, it is mostly just IraqWar-cruft.

Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As a GA reviewer myself, I find these reasonings by themselves somewhat shaky for automatically failing the GA. These things can be fixed with little effort, and the most prudent procedure would have been to put the article on "Hold" to prevent the wasting of time that it will be to re-quee them. I will fix them and renominate -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 23:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First GA Issues

For the next revewer, so it doesn't look like I just ignored the above review:

  • Although involved in Vietnam (11 decorations in 13 campaigns?), there is ultimately little to no detail about its role in the war, what battles it fought, who led it, etc. Just a table..
    • The one valid issue that I can fix.
      • Not even this one valid point is necessary. The brigade was a support unit at the time, part of the 1st cav. Details of what it did in vietnam belong on the 1st cav page, as this unit was part of that one at the time. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Missing discussion of individual notable soldiers or commander in the group, if that would apply. (Admittedly unsure)
    • This is not a requirement for a GA, and, as the unit first officially formed in 2005, any "notable soldiers" before that would need to be mentioned in the 1st Cavalry Division article. There have been no soldiers since then who have gone on to achieve notability enough to have articles on wikipedia.
  • Brigade commanders in photo are not identified (despite nametags), and "a project" is unnecessarily vague.
    • Additional information about the image is irrelavent to this article, unless the commanders or project by themselves are notable. Thus, it is only important to describe the image as it relates to the article.
  • Four paragraphs discuss the remobilization of the Army, not specific to actions of this brigade. Outside of that discussion, it is mostly just IraqWar-cruft.
    • As this article is about a support unit, it should not be expected to be "exciting;" the article includes information about what jobs the brigade did in Iraq; these really were not subject to much change.
-Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA-Failed

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to fail this article. For one, the large amount of Red links seriously takes attention away from the rest of the article. The only pictures there are are the patches/logo of the Brigade. The article is also quite short. Fix these problems and renominate. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Red links are a reason to put a GA on hold, not to fail it. I don't know if you looked at the article at all, but it is filled with images. And in terms of length, the article reasonably covers the topic in my opinion, so what exactly needs to be expanded? The unit is brand new, and its previous information belongs on the page of the unit it split from, as I stated above. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 23:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA On-Hold

1. Well written?: Minor Fail Pass

Although the prose of the article is generally good (could benefit from a copyedit before going for A-Class though), there are a few minor MoS things that should probably be fixed. Of particular note:

*There is some inconsistency with regards to wikilinks & dates. Some of them are formatted as [[8 July]] [[1991]], for example, while others are formatted as [[8 July]], [[1991]], still others are formatted as [[8 July]][[1991]]. I've gone through & cleaned up a few of them, but it wouldn't hurt to do another thorough check of the article, for consistency's sake. Although all three are acceptable methods of formatting date wikilinks, I'd suggest sticking to one, rather than using all three interchangeably.

Dates have been standardized. I have had it up for a peer review for some time, and have acted on the little feedback that I recieved. I copyedited the page myself today and hopefully removed any other problems you may find. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 02:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Noticed one that was double-linked that I fixed ([[29 April 29]]). Looks good. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: Minor Fail Pass

Although generally well-cited, there are a few key bits that require a reference, yet don't have one:

*"After intense fighting in Hue, the division then moved to relieve US Marine Corps units besieged at the Khe Sanh combat base in Operation Pegasus through March of 1968" should have a citation.

  • "This was a large scale search of areas under the jurisdiction of the US II Corps which saw 5,400 enemy killed and 2,000 captured" - Like most casualty statistics, should probably have a ref.
Clean those two things up & we'll be fine on this category.
Both issues fixed. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

Covers very broad time-period & history of the brigade, no objections.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

No evidence of bias or advocacy. No objections here.

5. Article stability? Pass

No evidence of mass edit-wars

6. Images?: Pass

Images are appropriately tagged, well-used, & do not violate copyright laws. No objections here.

As such, I have placed the article On-Hold. As soon as those changes have been made, this article will be GA-Class. If you need assistance or clarification, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk-page. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Have I addressed these issues to your satisfaction? -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Everything looks good. Passing GA....Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)