Talk:1st Filipino Infantry Regiment

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a good read through the article today.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK - first go through complete. There are some bits to fix, and an option on the copy-editing side - let me know how you'dl ike to play it! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The infobox contains information not in the article - I'd recommend you don't give infobox information (e.g. their commander's name) without adding it to the main article as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have integrated data that is located within the infobox into the article as suggested. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• There a number of other small copy-editing issues. Depending on what you prefer, I can either list them here, and you could make the changes, or I could change the article directly - I don't mind which way round we do it! 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Either way works. If one wish, for sake of cataloging changes related to the GAR, perhaps the requested changes can be listed. I also ran the article against Microsoft Word 2007; please let me know if there are any places that that program has missed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

General:

• The article suffers a little from overciting. Essentially, for a lot of your material here, which is in many cases uncontroversial in nature, you just need to give a single source for a statement. If you give too many citations, particularly if you're giving them each their own footnote, the sentences become quite hard to read, which is why its discouraged. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Citation overkill, which explores this issue a bit.

I have reduced the number of references listed below, and at most have kept two references max. Presently the article has two exceptions; they are the after the following sentence, or sentence fragments:

• "... in 1924 naturalization of Filipino Americans had been barred, as it was determined only aliens could be naturalized and Filipinos at the time were nationals."
• "After the war, the efforts of the 442nd continued to be lauded, ..."

Given that these maybe challenged in the future, having more than 2 references should help the stability of the statements. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• You don't need to have references in the lead, unless its a direct quote or similar: anything in the lead should be in the main body of the text and referenced there: but its not a requirement not to have them, if that makes sense.

To ensure stability, I do not see the harm of keeping references in the Intro Paragraph. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Some of the choices for sources for particular references are a little odd - e.g. "Key Events in the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt" as a source for the date of the fall of Manila - and left me wondering why a standard history text book wouldn't have been a better choice on some occasions. On the other hand, the date is uncontroversial, and you may not have a text book to hand, so for GAR purposes, I'm content. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added an additional, possibly more standard source for the statement in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In detail:

• Footnotes 30, 31 and 32 are talking about a film; they aren't really sources in and of themselves (although the film itself could probably be used as a source). To be honest, though, you don't need them - the figure of 7,000 is uncontroversial, and footnote 33 gives you a citable source for it. I suspect that you could simply delete 30-32.

Reduced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• "While at Camp Beale, there was a mass naturalization ceremony of 1,200 soldiers of the regiment" - there are four citations then backing up this single statement. Do you really need all four?

Reduced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• "In November 1943, the Regiment paraded through Los Angeles, with Carlos Bulosan, the influential Filipino author of America Is in the Heart, there to witness it" is supported by an article from the Asian Journal. In order to be a good source, you'll probably need to know at least who authored the article, and add that into the citations.
• Author added. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Soldiers of the regiment faced discrimination in Marysville while off post from neighboring Camp Beale, as the businesses stated they did not serve Filipinos." - again, four citations feels excessive.
• Reduced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• "One example was 2LT Rafael Ileto, who lead a team in the Alamo Scouts." Again, three references for a single short statement - you only need to choose one.

Reduced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Finally in the Philippines, the regiment conducted "mopping up"[56] operations on the island,[57][58] Samar,[1][3][59] and other islands in the Visayan islands group" is supported by seven different references - could you achieve the same with just two or three?

Unfortunately, each reference pertains to a single island operation, therefore, the references are needed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• "However, the activities of the Filipino Infantry Regiment and her sister units have gone largely unpublicized;[3] it was not until the documentaries Unsung Heroes and An UnTold Triumph that any significant visual media covered the history of the regiment.[69][70][71][72]" - again, five references supporting an average length sentence.

Reduced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Infobox: you list the commander as Colonel Robert H. Offley, and give four different references for this. Again, unless it is controversial who the commander is, you don't need four citations - one high quality one will do. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Reduced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• I couldn't see any.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Deployment. This felt a little bit thin. Is this all that happened to them in Papua New Guinea and Leyte during the war? What else happened during the "mopping up" operations? You've told a good story about the unit, and I suppose I was keen to hear what happened when they finally got deployed. Could you give a "main article" wikilink to the campaigns, perhaps, or something like that? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is not significant data, or in depth data relating to their combat operations, thus the briefness of the section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• "One example was 2LT Rafael Ileto, who lead a team in the Alamo Scouts." - I wasn't sure why Ileto was singled out like that: if he was unusual in some way, it is worth saying why; if he was (and no disrespect to the units concerned) just another junior officer, it seems odd to mention him specifically. 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

2LT Ileto is singled out as he is a regiment member, but at the same time one of the few Regiment members who became independently notable on his own; he would later become the Vice Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Appears neutral.Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable.Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• Images check out fine.Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Images fine. The captions have unnecessary full-stops at the end, which runs against the MOS, but that isn't a formal requirement at GAR.Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate. I was reading over WP:CAP, and am a little confused. Is WP:CAP#Drawing the reader into the article what is being referred to by the above statement? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Class A MILHIST Review

This review is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States). The edit link found below and to the right of the link back to the article can be used to add comments to the review.

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

---

• Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)

Nominator(s): RightCowLeftCoast (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this article has passed the GA Review, and has been peer reviewed prior to that process. Seeing as how Class A is has stricter requirements than a GAR, being elevated up to GA should assist in passing a Class A Review. It is the present POV of this editor that the references keep an appropriate style from reputable sources; that per the GAR the subject has been fairly presented, without bias; that there is a hierarchical heading structure, with a concise lead section; and is written in an articulate English, is clear, and withing style guidelines; and has appropriate images. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments This is a pretty good article, but I think that it needs a bit more work to reach A class:
  • The article doesn't explain what kind of unit this was and it's intended role. Was it a standard infantry regiment, or was it formed for special purposes? (for instance, to provide scouts and interpreters to other US Army units operating in the Philippines)
  • The lead doesn't need to contain references if the material is referenced in the body of the article
  • "Originally created as a battalion, it was declared a regiment on 13 July 1942" - was it actually of regimental size (3 battalions), or was this an honorific?
  • "Filipinos were strongly encouraged to volunteer for the regiment, and only those who did so were assigned to it." - it's unclear what this means, especially as Filipinos were also subject to conscription. What happened to Filipinos servicemen who didn't volunteer for this unit? - were they assigned to other combat units, or was this the only combat unit they were able to join?
  • "Formed in March 1942, the 1st Filipino Infantry Battalion was activated in April of the same year" - what's the difference between being 'formed' and 'activated'?
  • "Colonel Offley" - include his first name here
  • "Replacements from Hawaii, who were not allowed to enlist until 1943 due to the need for labor as argued by the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association" - this wording is a bit awkward
  • "The regiment would later be reassigned back to the 8th Army, along with the Americal Division" - when did this take place?
  • "Finally in the Philippines, the regiment conducted "mopping up" operations on the island" - which island?
  • The details of the regiment's combat history are very sketchy - can this be expanded? For instance, did the regiment fight as a single unit, or were its battalions separated? How many casualties did it suffer?
  • Was the regiment used appropriately? Its combat history seems unimpressive for a unit which had spent such a long time in training and was made up of what seem to be well motivated soldiers.
  • "By August 1945, operations came to a close" - you might want to note that this was because the war had concluded
  • "Many younger soldiers connected to a culture to which they had previously only had a distant relationship." - this is a bit unclear
  • the following website used to reference the article does not appear to be a reliable source: [1] Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Reply:
  • Per this reference "CAINF" the regiment was formed for "liberation of their former homeland". Otherwise, it was a regular infantry regiment.
    • That should be included in the article then
  • Most of the information in the lead is referenced elsewhere in the article, except for the segregated unit & California National Guard statements.
    • You can remove the other citations from the lead then - they look messy
  • On Battalion to Regiment unit change, it was due to size increase of the number of volunteers; how would you suggest this be integrated into the article?
    • Explain the regiment's structure (especially as this was more than the change of a name; it meant that the unit went from being one battalion to three battalions plus a headquarters and other odds and ends such as a cannon company). Did the regiment have any attached sub-units? (Shelby Stanton should cover this in his order of battle book)
  • It was suggested in the reviews that the statement of other Filipino American servicemembers, not within the regiment, is not required for the background context, so was removed. Would it be wrong to re-add that information, with its reference, which would go against the past reviews?
    • The current wording is confusing
  • The formed statement is a direct quote from the source, I believe what is actually meant is constituted per AR 220-5.
    • Please clarify this in the article
  • The question regarding COL Offley, do you mean within the article? It is already included in the infobox. Would you like this done as well for COL Hamby?
    • That would be good
  • The statement regarding HSPA, how would you propose that it be copy edited?
    • To active tense (eg, 'During its time at Oro Bay the regiment was reinforced with Filipino's from Hawaii. These men had not been able to enlist in the Army until 1943 as the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association had successfully argued that their labor was needed in the sugar industry'). This also poses the question of why the regiment needed to be reinforced before it saw combat - is this known? (I presume that it was due to some combination of disease and men being posted to other units).
  • I have added the month and year of the reassignment.
  • The islands where the "mopping up" occured is listed following the statement.
    • My comment was in relation to the use of "the island" without specifying what island this was.
  • As stated in the reply to the GAR, unfortunately, I could not find any additional references that detailed the combat history of the reference, just passing references for the most part.
    • OK, that's a shame. It is a serious limitation to the article though.
  • It can be inferred through the rejection of Australian & New Zealand units, and reduction of credit given to guerrilla units, by GA MacArthur that he wanted the United States Army to have the primary credit for the liberation. However, such inference maybe not keeping with neutral POV.
    • OK, fair enough
  • War concluded in September 1945, however major operations within the Philippine Islands were what concluded. Even after the war it can be said that the holdouts, with their small part, continued an unofficial conflict, not knowing that the war officially ended.
    • All the major fighting finished within hours of the Japanese decision to surrender mid-August 1945 (the western Allies obviously called off all offensive operations, and quickly began spreading the news to the Japanese units who were out of contact with the national government). The current wording generates a bit of confusion for no gain at all, in my view.
  • Would expanding on the statement not violate the GAR requirement of clear and concise?
    • I don't see why
  • Is an article posted by a chapter of the Disabled American Veterans organization not be considered a reliable source? I can change it over to another published source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I have referred the DAV source to WP:RSN for review. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • As of 1 August there has been no reply to the thread created. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
      • What do you think makes the website a reliable source? Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Second Round of Replies, part 1 (I will continue this when I get back from work):
  • I have expanded a sentence to include the statement from reference CAINF, see see change here.
  • I have removed the references in question from the lead, see changes here.
  • I unfortunately do not have access to the entire book Order of battle, U.S. Army, World War II. However, I have added it's structure per a unit publication, circa 1943. See change here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Second round of replies, part 2:
  • I have expanded the statement regarding non-regimental service of Filipino Americans; perhaps this makes this less confusing. Here is the change.
  • I have changed the wording from Formed to Constituted, with a note within the reference. See change here.
  • I have added the first names of the Colonels of the Regiment at least once in the article, outside the info box. See the change here.
  • Made copy edit as suggested. Expanded reason for need of reinforcement. See change here.
  • Changed "the island" to Leyte. See change here.
  • Copy edit of end of operations done. See change here.
  • I have expanded upon the younger soldiers renewed connection to the Filipino culture. See change here.
  • The DAV reference is a published source, an attachment to the Retired Activities Office Bulletin of July 2010. RAO are usually funded by the federal government, and can be found at many US Military bases as a resource to retirees (example), or areas were there were military bases (example). As such it is highly likely that it has been editorially reviewed by the publishing office prior to it being transmitted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • What expertise do they have in this field? The author of the article isn't identified, and the article states that its source is 'Mil.com Jun 2010' - mil.com is a portal to US Department of Defence websites and contains no content. I've seen all sorts of inaccuracies in the newsletters of comparable Australian veterans organisations so they shouldn't be automatically considered reliable (they're generally written and edited by retired servicemen with no training in history and are focused on veterans' interests rather than history). The article contains some obvious inaccuracies (for instance, "Australia forces were scattered in Europe as well as throughout the Southwest Pacific" - given that Europe was entirely occupied by Germany this is obviously wrong, and the Australian Army's main fighting units were being transferred home from North Africa at the time, and MacArthur's headquarters was located in the most prestigious building in central Brisbane, not "Camp Tagrabalga, Beaudesert"). Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I can place this reference in further reading, and replace it with other more reliable sources?

Won't be able to do that today mind you, have to leave for work soon. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • FYI: There was no response at RSN regarding the DAV source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I have removed the offending reference, see change here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dabs [2] and images all have alt text [3] (no action required).
  • One external link reports as being dead [4].
  • The citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
  • The Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [5] (no action required).
  • You might consider mentioning World War II specifically in the lead, as this might improve the context of the article (suggestion only).
  • Grammatically I'm not sure about this phrase in the lead: "where it would first see combat as a unit." Perhaps "where it first saw combat as a unit."
  • This is a little repetitive: "The regiment consisted of three battalions, each consisting of a headquarters company", perhaps reword?
  • Use of the term "TO&E", although wikilinked, seems likely to confuse. Perhaps keep the wikilink but label it "establishment" or something similar the average reader might more easily understand.
  • The second paragraph in the "Deployment" section is a little repetitive. Specifically you overuse the term "the regiment", perhaps consider rewording a few instances of this. I have changed one paragraph as an example.
  • Inconsistency in use of "the regiment" and "the Regiment" throughout the article. As it is a proper noun (I think) I believe "the Regiment" is correct. Not 100% on this though...
  • "who had succeeded Colonel Offley as the regiment commander". "Colonel Offley" should just be "Offley" at second mention per WP:SURNAME.
  • Inconsistent presentation of the abbreviation for United States, in places you use "US" and in others "U.S.". IMO either is correct as long as it is consistently applied throughout the article.
  • The legacy section is a little repetitive, in that you overuse the term "activities". Perhaps reword a couple? Anotherclown (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Reference "27" to AR 220-5 has been repaired. See diff here.
    • Added mention of World War II directly in the lead, as suggested. See diff here.
    • Requested copy edit was made to the lead. See diff here.
    • Requested copy edit was made to the description of the units organization. See diff, and review to see if it the change was satisfactory.
    • Removed jargon. See diff, and review to see if the change was satisfactory.
    • Copy edit of Deployment section conducted. See diff here.
    • Made Regiment a Pro-noun, as suggested. See diff here.
    • Made change of regarding COL Offley per WP:SURNAME. See diff here.
    • Changed US to U.S. where possible; change not made within references, to be consistent with the cited reference. See diff here.
    • Only found two uses of the word activities. Changed one of them, as requested; see diff here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • All issues have been resolved so I'm happy to support. Good work on an interesting and well written article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Watch for capitalization errors in your cites. Review Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles. Examples include cites #36, 34, 61, 58. #34 has a problem with the author's name as well.
• Not at all sure that I like this combined format. It's very hard to locate a specific source, but that's not a factor in this review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The references were not capitalized in the manor found at the referenced sources. I have made the following changes to match that particular MOS; see changes below:
    • 34
    • 36
    • 61
    • 58
      • Great, but those were only examples. What about the others? And you missed Kevin Starr's name in #34.
  • The reason for the combined format as it follows WP:CITEBUNDLE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I know why you did it, and you're certainly entitled to do so; I just said that I didn't like it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The reason for the citebundling was due to a past Review suggestion that stated that multiple references to a single point within the article made certain sections difficult to read, therefore, the bundling occurred. Would you suggest that I do not bundle them, and include each as a separate reference?
      • Please let me know what references need to be worked on, that would assist in me improving this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't think that you need to change anything. I just found it a bit disconcerting and troublesome to use if I was already knowledgeable about this topic. Forex, if I'm reviewing a British destroyer article, I look for cites to Whitley, Lenton, Friedman, and English, in that rough order of their desirablility, to see if the editor's consulted the fundamental references on the ship. If not, then there's likely to be problems. Bundling things like this makes that strategy harder to do, but certainly not impossible. You should be fine at FAC, if that's where you're headed with this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, I have gone through the references and found what I think are the capitalization errors, see the diff here. If you think there are others, please let me know. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
        • All good except for Kevin Snow's name, which still needs to be fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
          • OK, I have made additional changes here. I have also debundled references that are two or less; see changes here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Its just a suggestion but I think you should consider using short citations per WP:CITESHORT. Anotherclown (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
              • Oops, missed this earlier: Stanton needs a place of publication. Otherwise all good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have made the change to that citation, see diff here.

To use CITESHORT, would be a great deal of effort, and the present citation style is consistent with all the relevant sources available to potential readers. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What about in the Further reading section?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

One further reading, the reference gives a scanning location, but not a publishing location, is this what you want added?

The other one is a website, maintained by CMH; do you want the website publishers location added? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that nothing more than a snippet is viewable, the google books link is worthless, which is why I generally never bother. So, yes, it needs a publisher location and you can delete the page #.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added locations as requested, see changes here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. 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.

Before FAR

Having read some of the critiques of past recent FARs, it appears to be a daunting crucible for an article to endure. Even some A Class MILHIST articles have not meet the scrutiny of the reviewers at FAC. That being said, what should I do to improve this article before nominating? Should I open this article up to another peer review? Or should I bring a blindfold and cigarette and just step up to the plate and face it without additional improvement? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The main barrier I see to this reaching FA class is the lack of detail which is available on the unit's combat history in 1944 and 1945. You've clearly looked everywhere for material on this, so it's not your fault, but it does form a significant limitation to the article. On a smaller note, the article's lead should be expanded to two paragraphs before this goes to FAC as well as the current lead is a bit short given the length of the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, these two US Army Center for Military websites provide useful details on the regiment's combat history which haven't been included in the article yet: [6] and [7] The second website seems particularly useful. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Those appear to have been posted some time after May of this year. I shall integrate those into the article, some within the next two weeks. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I've got borrowing rights at the Australian Defence Force Academy Library (which specialises in obscure aspects of the Pacific War), and I'll see if they've got anything on this. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have integrated the sources. See the diff here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Class FA Review

This review is transcluded from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)/archive1. The edit link found below and to the right of the link back to the article can be used to add comments to the review.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [8].

---

1st Filipino Infantry Regiment

Nominator(s): RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been peer reviewed, passed GAR, and passed MILHIST Class A Review. It has been checked by others and using MS Word for prose, it is as comprehensive as can be given the research that can be found. To the best of my abilities it has been written in a way that it neither praises the unit that is the subject or makes negative statements regarding how it was utilized; it is also stable. Lead, structure, and citation style was checked in MILHIST Class A Review, as was the media. Also the background, and legacy sections are not the majority of the article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
• Don't italicize publishers
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers, and if so what information is included and how it is formatted (for example, "New York, New York" vs "New York, NY" vs "New York")
• Check formatting of quotes within quotes, and don't include consecutive double-quotation marks
• this link doesn't appear to be going where you want it to be
• FN 4: are you citing page 591 or the whole book? If the former, use "p." ("pp." is for multiple pages); if the latter, please specify a page or small range. Check for other uses of "pp." where "p." is intended
• Retrieval dates aren't required for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
• Check for small inconsistencies in reference formatting like doubled periods
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or unhyphenated
• Provide page numbers for multi-page sources, for example FN 17
• FN 28: need full bibliographic details of sources being cited
• Fn 63: is this one author or two? Check formatting
• Use a consistent formatting for multi-author citations
• Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using website names, base URLs or publishers
• Be consistent in how editors are notated
• FN 51: "London, UK" or simply "London" is preferred to "London, England". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I am beginning the process of improving the references above. As for the everyculture.com reference it is written by a Professor of History from San Jose State University, H. Brett Melendy. The professor got the material from a book written in 1982 that the professor reviewed. Thus I have instead replaced the reference with that book. See the change here.

As for the esubject source, the page since first accessed appears to have become a WP:DEADLINK; however, the book itself is still accessible in print. Should I remove the URL to the now inaccessible dead link?

Unfortunately, due to real life, it will take me sometime to make the changes requested. Please be patient with me, and I will post changes and responses as they come. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I wonder if the MILHIST A-class reviewers actually read the article when I come across prose problems like these:

• "By August 1945, operations came to a close".
• "Soldiers of the Regiment that had been detached to the Alamo Scouts ...". Using "that" rather than "who" makes that sentence ambiguous. Was it individual soldiers or a Regiment that had been detached? Was it the soldiers or the Regiment subsequently reassigned? Why "detached" rather than "attached"?
• "Others married women under to the War Brides Act".
• "Many younger soldiers connected to a culture to which they had previously only had a distant relationship". What does "connected to a culture" mean?
• "Soldiers of the Regiment who did either not qualify to return to the U.S ...".
• "Filipinos were allowed to immigrate freely to the United States as U.S. nationals." You don't immigrate to.
• "The Regiment was made up of three battalions". I find the capitalisation of "Regiment" throughout the article a little strange, but I can see no logic for capitalising "Regiment" yet not "battalion". Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That seems OK to me - the article is about the Regiment, so the capitialisation is OK (though perhaps not necessary). Regiments comprise several battalions, and there's no need to capitalise them unless they're being specifically named. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think I'll be buying that I'm afraid. Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wasn't segregated . . .

Couldn't have been segregated if it had non-Filipino officers. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There are two reliable sources that state it was. It was as segregated as the predominatly African American and Japanese Americans units that existed at the time. Those units enlisted personnel were minorities, with predominatly Caucasian American officers. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.taxi-usa.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2008-12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606154203/http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~gonzo1/files/456/456_READER_2004S.pdf to http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~gonzo1/files/456/456_READER_2004S.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606154203/http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~gonzo1/files/456/456_READER_2004S.pdf to http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~gonzo1/files/456/456_READER_2004S.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523162037/http://millercenter.org/president/keyevents/fdroosevelt to http://millercenter.org/president/keyevents/fdroosevelt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929062108/http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r220_5.pdf to http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r220_5.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811143936/http://apanews.si.edu/2003/01/30/an-untold-triumph-the-story-of-the-1st-2nd-filipino-infantry-regiments-u-s-army/ to http://apanews.si.edu/2003/01/30/an-untold-triumph-the-story-of-the-1st-2nd-filipino-infantry-regiments-u-s-army/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816043419/http://filam.si.edu/curriculum/u3-part-06a.html to http://filam.si.edu/curriculum/u3-part-06a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520194305/http://www.capaa.wa.gov/data/timeline.shtml to http://www.capaa.wa.gov/data/timeline.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811222002/http://asianjournalusa.com/the-day-of-infamy-sds-unsung-heroes-of-world-war-ii-p706-80.htm to http://asianjournalusa.com/the-day-of-infamy-sds-unsung-heroes-of-world-war-ii-p706-80.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)