Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Walter Krueger

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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.

Walter Krueger

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

After MacArthur, Kinkaid, Kenney and Eichelberger, it was inevitable that I'd eventually get around to Walter Krueger Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review : fine, although File:Dalton with Krueger.jpg's "25th Infantry Division history" is rather vague. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption is that the uploader got it from http://www.25thida.org/photos.html but that site rotates its pictures, and it is not that anymore. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: I made quite a few tweaks, please check that you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit. I also have the following comments:
  • Support Comments
    • No dab links [1] (no action required).
    • External links all check out [2] (no action required).
    • Some images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only).
    • Reflinks tool check all ok [4] (no action required).
    • The Earwig Tool shows no violations [5] (in fact the nearest matches are with a WP mirror site... no action required).
    • I bow to Grandiose's superior knowledge re: the images.
    • I'll be back later. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • suggest you add that Flatow is in modern-day Poland.
    • This sentence seems clunky, "Krueger remained with the National Guard, training units, and he helped establish a school for officers at the University of Pennsylvania" suggest "Krueger trained National Guard units and helped establish a school for officers at the University of Pennsylvania" or similar, if that is consistent with the meaning intended.
    • Suggest you clarify that Langres is in France.
    • Suggest "He became commander of the Southern Defense Command as well on 16 July 1941." be changed to something like "He was also appointed as commander of the Southern Defense Command on 16 July 1941."
    • More to follow. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest "The War Department approved Krueger's transfer to SWPA, but not Third Army headquarters" should read something like "The War Department approved Krueger's transfer to SWPA, but did not transfer Third Army headquarters with him".
    • I'm struggling a bit with the flow of the Bismarck Archipelago section especially regards Alamo Force and Sixth Army HQ. I appreciate the command situation was diabolical. However, I suggest you need to say where they were located initially (and where Krueger was located) then what forces they commanded and then what operations were undertaken. If Krueger commanded Alamo Force and it was the operational headquarters, then perhaps note that Sixth Army HQ was essentially administrative and based in Australia and leave it at that until Sixth Army took over ops. Either way, I think the second and third paras need re-factoring. Suggest the changes in chief of staff could be inserted where they fit chronologically rather than all together. I also don't have a sense of when the ops were conducted (Chronicle, Dexterity, Admiralty Islands) from the text. Generally, I'd suggest being quite strict chronologically-speaking with this section and put in dates.
      • Added dates and a map. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The dates and map help, no doubt. But as a person reading this cold, with no knowledge of the operations described, I still think this section is hard to follow. It's not clear where Krueger was based, and the chronologically out of place series of changes in chiefs of staff doesn't help. I suppose it will come out in the wash at FAC, but the writing is not as sharp, focused and flowing as the rest of the article. Also, I think re: Op Chronicle it should be "in June 1943, not "on June 1943"? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the New Guinea campaign, it starts off talking about the Sixth Army planning ops, but then Alamo Force. Underlines the need for clarification of who was up who with the two HQ and what forces they commanded.
    • What/who "compelled MacArthur to press on"?
    • The "landing at Wakde" and "Battle of Biak" could both do with a bit more info. The descriptions beg questions about casualties and how long the battles went on.
    • Not sure about the use of the term "2nd Armored". I understand that "2nd Armored" is standard for a US regiment, but in this situation I found it confusing. I would have thought the Japanese designation of "2nd Tank Division" would be more appropriate. Also suggest using "his 2nd Tank Division for a decisive counterattack against Krueger's vulnerable flank"
      • I don't like "Tank division". I understand the translator's reasoning, but all the books on WWII use "Armored Division". Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still think you need "Krueger's" instead of "his" there.
    • Could you state who Fay Babson was?
    • I'm pretty much done, mostly minor stuff but I suggest the Bismarck Archipelago section needs a bit of a re-work so it flows better and is easier to follow. Happy to discuss of course.
    • Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest "Good intelligence was important for Dexterity" might be unnecessary, as good intel is important for all military operations. I think you could just delete the sentence. If you think it is crucial, perhaps "Operation Dexterity" rather than just "Dexterity". I'm sure I'm being an annoyingly pedantic staff duties nazi, but I'm not familiar with a convention for using only the codename.
    • suggest "inter service" should be "inter-service"?
    • I'm done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sense my remaining comment regarding the flow of the Bismarck Archipelago section is not really accepted, and suspect it is a more personal stylistic matter that should not be an obstacle to support for A-Class. The article is well referenced, comprehensive yet does not go into unnecessary detail, appropriately structured, and well supported by images and a useful map. I have therefore noted my support above. Well done once again. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quite; I made a series of changes. I considered moving the change of chief of staff to somewhere in chronological order, but it does not fit anywhere. As it is, the whole section is arranged in topical order rather than chronological. I should add that sources rarely deals with the war in the Pacific chronologically, because the campaigns and battles overlap. Most sources take a geographic approach. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Walter_Krueger&oldid=1075714309"