Talk:1st Infantry Division (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 1st Infantry Division (United States) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 4, 2007
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Under the Vietnam War summary, it might be more readable to rewrite it, including a listing of the various operations (which avoid linking to the Rolling Stones). That listing would provide useful additions to the Vietnam War category of lists of operations.--Buckboard 10:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

While the 1st Brigade page does need some work to fill in gaps between WWII & ODS, neither brigade's page should be merged with this one. This page is already getting long as it is. Marktaff 06:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

for you lovers of Big Red One they are starting a new brigade in Ft Hood part of the 3rd brigade. it will be up and running by april 07 and deployable april 08



Contents

[edit] 1st and 2nd Infantry Brigades

Both brigades have a history that preceeds that of the 1st Infantry Division. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 05:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we have "Big red one" redirect here?

[edit] OOB for Omaha

It seems to me that the attached supporting units, like the two tank batalions, should be added given the role they played in the divisional plan --Mrg3105 11:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Units?

With the modularization of the Army, the current structures and unit affiliations are no longer correct. For instance, 1st Sqdn, 4th Cavalry, now belongs to a Brigade at Ft. Riley, it is not a Separate. I can correct some of the incorrect information, but most of it will be difficult, since even published Army campaign plans for modularization are not going into effect as they had been planned. I guess that is the beauty of transforming and fighting a war simultaneously. — Andrew 17:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motto section

Why is there a separate section for the motto in the article when the exact same information is already conveyed in the unit infobox? Quite repetative, wouldn't you agree? --ScreaminEagle 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I did that due to a suggestion on the a-class review (failed) --Pupster21 Talk To Me 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Still seems awfully silly to me. If there were some history put in there about the motto or some other information besides just the motto itself, I could certainly understand its inclusion. But as an exact copy of something almost next to it, definitely superfluous. --ScreaminEagle 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

History??? --Pupster21 Talk To Me 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Just kidding. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. That has a point. I still say keep it. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 4, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Article contains many red links and should be in a written format instead of trivial lists.
2. Factually accurate?: Artilce only cites one source, the rest of the article needs references.
3. Broad in coverage?: Article discusses many key points in its coverage.
4. Neutral point of view?: No WP:NPOV problems.
5. Article stability? Article has been stable.
6. Images?: Article contains images.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — JA10 T · C 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 invasion of Iraq

Are you kidding? The invasion occurred in 2003, there was no new invasion in 2006, it's occupation, if anything. C'mon, let's get truly NPOV.--Vidkun 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

As with all other US-Army Divisions I've created a graphic of the structure based on the information I could find. The graphic is half complete as I could not find any information as to which units are now part of the made to complete the graphic. --noclador 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

click to enlarge
click to enlarge
The follwoing comment was left on my commons talkpage:
4th Brigade is a Light Infantry Brigade. 2-26 and 1-28 are light infantry battalions, similar to units from the 10th Mountain. 24.214.28.179 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
that is not correct, with the new reorganization of the US-Army the 1st Inf. Div will consist of 4 Armored Brigades without any light infantry units. --noclador 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Negative, I am a member of 1-4 CAV. 4 IBCT is a light infantry BDE. Additionally 3 IBCT at Ft Hood is light. 2-26, and 1-28 are light infantry battalions. (No bradleys.

The army is going to having three different types of brigades, Heavy (HBCT), Stryker (SBCT), and Infantry (Light)(IBCT). If you look at the units on the Riley web page, its clearly marked 4 IBCT. http://www.riley.army.mil/ . I wouldn't worry about division nomenclature so much, the army has switched to a brigade-centric deployment and capability system, rather than a divisional one. Hal06 (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)