Talk:United States Army Materiel Command

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Untitled

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Definite stub or written by someone who works there. Way too slick and positive. Boils (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agree. The problem is that the material is just a copy of an article written and published by the organisation itself. Essentially, it is an organisational autobiography. That the material is public domain means that we can use it verbatim, but doesn't mean we must. -- Whpq (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Way too slick and positive? That's silly. It just lists what they do, their responsibilities, and some facts about the history and the organization. I'm not saying more can't be added, but what's here is pretty neutral and a pretty good starting point. How is stating the year they were founded or who the current commander is not neutral? Take the tag off and, if you want to add more, all the Army Regs are availble online. Start reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.111.44 (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic