Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/7th 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 discussion.

7th Infantry Division (United States)

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Ed!^(talk)

The article is a GA and has seen a lot of work from me recently. Its peer review has recieved very little feedback compared to other articles I have up, and I feel it is time to move the process along. I will address any concerns directly on the review. -Ed!^(talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - just a few points that stick out:

Generally, only one review should be open at a time for an article, so I would advise archiving the peer review if you are finished with it.
- I was under the impression that only GA and A class reviews could not occur simultaneously. I was hoping that the Peer Review would bring in suggestions based on FA criteria, while the ACR would address problems with A criteria. But if it is required to only have one review open at a time, I will close the Peer Review. -Ed!^(talk) 05:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it is formally required, but it is best not to have a simultaneous peer and A-Class review open; it just confuses things. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've requested to close the peer review in favor of keeping this one open. -Ed!^(talk) 05:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You do realise you could have done that yourself, right? ;-) I have just archived it, but remember that if you wish to open a peer review on the article again you will have to move the original to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/7th Infantry Division (United States)/Archive 1" and open a complete new review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in one of your above peer reviews, I do not know how you have ordered those listed as "Notable commanders" in the infobox, but I think it would be preferable if they were ordered chronologically, with the earliest of the four placed first and the most recent last.
- Done. Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now they require endashes. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. -Ed!^(talk) 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of puncuation typos throughout the article, with commas or fullstops missing. Please go through the article and fix these.
- I have given the article a full copy edit, and looked over it again to fix what I saw. Are there any sections that you saw needing attention? -Ed!^(talk) 05:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have not had a full read of the prose, but skimming through I spotted a number of, as mentioned above, puncuation typos involving fullstops and commas. However, I think they have now mostly been addressed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've looked through most of the article and added commas and fullstops wherever I saw them needed. -Ed!^(talk) 05:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything listed in the "Honors" section requires a cite.
- Done. Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emdashes should be unspaced.
- Done. Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think {{reflist}} is preferred over <references/> in regards to citations.
- Done. Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I am gearing up for the first week of Spanish 1302, and am uncertain of my abiility to get back here an and preform a thorough review any earlier than wednesday, but I do have a few comments for you in the maen time:
- You have no errors reported in your external links or disambig links, well done!
- You have one malformed citation, it says there no such cite as liniage. That needs to be fixed.
I will take a closer look at the article when the opurtunity to do so arises. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation fixed. -Ed!^(talk) 16:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. Now, as promised, the thorough review:
- In the WWII section you have cited Field Artillery Battalions, a Signal Company, an Ordnance Company, a Quartermaster Company, a Reconnaissance Troop, an Engineering Battalion, a Medical Battalion, and a Counter Intelligence Detachment. While I grant that not all of these groups may have an article here I do think we could lik to the broader terms like "Engineering Batalion". See if you can find some articles to serve as suitable substitutes for the time being.
  - Done. -Ed!^(talk) 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...a bitter battle over freezing tundra against fanatically resisting Japanese." Having written WWII articles before I am aware of the extent to which the Japanese resisted the Allied advance, but as a coordinator I do feel obliged to point out that we do need to weigh our weasel words with care. I would suggest double citing the sentence if possible, or citing the words bitter and fanatical to a precise source just to be safe.
  - I agree. I simply removed the weasel words, tried to put more neutral terminology in there. -Ed!^(talk) 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- battle at Chichagof Harbor, if the propser name for the battle, needs to be capitalized (ie :Battle of Chichagof Harbor), and if it is the culmination of the island action then we probably have an article on it here that you can link to.
  - It's not a formal name, just the statement of a battle taking place there. I found the article for the Harbor itself and linked it. -Ed!^(talk) 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Leyete and Okinawa sections you have two pictures lined up to the right, I would suggest altering them so that one aligns to the left and one to the right.
  - Done. -Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Okinawa section you have the line "After the fight, the division began capturing large numbers of Japanese prisoners for the first time in the war". Why did these Japanese surrender? Thats worth going into a little since most choose to fight to the death.
  - Done. -Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Okinawa section, the second to last paragraph ends with the line "but these plans were scrapped after the Japanese surrendered following the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[36]" I would suggest linking to the article Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than linking individually to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just a thought.
  - Done. -Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, it all looks good. well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I now believe this to be A-class. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ This article is close to meeting the criteria, but needs a little more work:
- "The 12th and 13th Brigades did not reactivate" it might be worth noting that this was because the standard US Army infantry division organisation at the time did not include brigades
  - Done. -Ed!^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "With the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor, the division was sent to Camp San Luis Obispo to resume its training as a combat division" - what was the division doing before that? The pre-Pearl Harbor training exercises described look pretty standard for combat units
  - I just meant that the division was moved to a new location to continue its training. I have changed the word from "resume" to "continue" -Ed!^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When was the 53rd Infantry Regiment replaced, where did it go and was the 159th Infantry Regiment transferred from another division or newly raised?
  - It was a new unit from the California National Guard. Clarified this. -Ed!^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The 7th Division didn't 'drive' the Japanese from Attu - as the text correctly notes, the remnants of the garrison mounted a suicide attack and were not withdrawn
  - Clarified. -Ed!^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The statement that the division "drove them from the island" is still there - this should be removed as its incorrect (it implies that the Japanese force left the island). Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Ed!^(talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did the 159th Infantry Regiment later form part of another division?
  - No. The regiment stayed on the island for some time and then returned to the US where it remained until the end of the war. -Ed!^(talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could this be mentioned in the article? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Ed!^(talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A map of the Okinawan campaign would be helpful if one is available
  - Done. -Ed!^(talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know why the ratio of wounded to killed was so low during the retreat to Hungnam? Normally more soldiers are wounded than killed - I presume that this figure reflects the division being unable to properly evacuate or care for its casualties during the retreat.
  - Around 2,000 of the killed were from Task Force Faith, which was completely destroyed by the Chinese, those who were too wounded to retreat were killed. Clarified this in the casualty count. -Ed!^(talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the entire division involved in the invasion of Panama? If so, limiting coverage to a single sentence doesn't seem sufficient.
  - Elements of the division participated in it, but as far as my sources say, all the 7th Division troops did was secure some of the northern military bases and hold them while the 82nd Airborne Division took care of the rest of the country. Clarified this. -Ed!^(talk) 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What role did the division play during the LA riots?
  - Clarified. -Ed!^(talk) 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The third para in the 'A division in name only' section is full of military jargon which needs to be translated (eg, what's a 'Small Scale Contingency Operations rotation', what was involved in the various training and evaluation functions, etc - I think everything you need to cover in the para is already there, it's just diffiult to understand as written). Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've cut out military terms and replaced them with more descriptive ones. -Ed!^(talk) 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support My above comments have now been addressed - great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support

File:7InfDivRightDUI.gif lacks author information

File:Battle of Inchon.png Is there a specific source for this, ie website?

File:Don C Faith.jpg lacks author information

File:Einar H Ingman.jpg lacks author information

I think the author issues should be easily resolved, all of the images seem to be good US public domain images so no copyright issues.

The MOS states that it is preferable for the images to alternate wherever possible. I notice they are inconsistent in their placing, is that for any particular reason?

~~Other than these little issues, I think the article is good to go for A-Class. Good job. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Images given info and placed in an alternating fashion. -Ed!^(talk) 00:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Happy to support now, my minor issues have been sorted. Regards, Woody (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 discussion.