Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/45th Infantry Division (United States)

45th Infantry Division (United States)

Article is a GA nominee, looking to get it to FA eventually. Please pay special attention to referencing and sources, they seem to be the biggest obstacle. -Ed!^(talk) 04:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EnigmaMcmxc

I have had a look at the refs and sources they look a-ok to me. Internet sources all appear to be US military or Gov, the one that isnt cites it sources.
"After a brief deactivation, the division returned to duty in the Korean War, defending U.N. lines against repeated attacks from Chinese forces" - This is in the lead, does this mean that the division did not have an offensive role in the war?
1. By the time the division got to Korea the fight was mostly trench warfare, so not really. I clarified the lead to say that the division was "on the UN lines" -Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too many dead links, they should be removed until the articles have been created.
1. Removed most of the less important ones. How does it look now? -Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Brigades were disbanded in favor of regimental commands" - what does this mean?
1. From that point, the division contained three regiments instead of two brigades. I have clarified this. -Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"On August 1, the Division withdrew from the front line for rest and patrols." - it withdrew from the front to patrol? I think this needs to be clairfied a little.
1. Clarified. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Allied forces conducted a frontal assault on the Gustav Line stronghold at Monte Cassino, and VI Corps was detached from the Army Group and assigned to land behind enemy lines at Anzio, Operation Shingle." - Can this be reworded so Operation Shingle isnt tagged on the end?
1. Done. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"part of a buildup in preparation for an invasion of mainland Europe in southern France to coencide with Operation Overlord.[15] The 45th Infantry Division, along with the 36th and 3rd Infantry Divisions were pulled from the line in Italy, however the planned attack, Operation Anvil, was delayed until August.[15]" - i think Operaiton Anvil should be introduced earlier, when talking about the division being withdrawn.
1. Dome. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The 45th Infantry Division participated in its fourth assault landing during Operation Dragoon on 15 August 1944, at St. Maxime, in Southern France.[10] The German Army, reeling from the Battle of Normandy pulled back after a short fight" - These 2 sentances need to be clairfied; surely the Germans facing this division pulled back after a short fight and not those up north that took part in a 3 month long slogging battle. I think it should be mentioned that the Germans were not simply just pulling back but something about their strategy should be mentioned as it seems they hightailed it back to Germany following Normandy and Dragoon.
1. Clarified that the german's retreat was part of a larger overal withdrawal east. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"During this time much of the division's artillery assets fell under the command of the 44th Infantry Division" - what does it mean fell under their command? Where they transferred? The following sentance "It returned to VI Corps on New Year's day", is this in regards to the arty or the division - can this be clarified?
1. Clarified both. The Artillery was attatched to the 44th Divison - it wasn't permenantly assigned to them, but it was sent to them temporarily to support their own assets. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The division captured Munich during the next two days, and remained there until the end of the war on V-E Day.[10] During the next month, the division occupied Munich " - 2 points, the bit about VE day seems a bit awkward. 2, the division captured Munich and stayed there but only occupied the city after the war - that seems a little confusing.
1. Tried to reword both points to make them more clear. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Post-War Drawdown" - drawdown means?
1. As the second grapgh in the section states, "drawdown" refers to the Army's massive reduction in size, cutting around 80 divisions of the force. I can't think of any better word for this in the section header so I just renamed it "post-war" -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The 45th Infantry Division was reconstituted as a National Guard unit" - the pre war section states this division was already national guard?
1. The division was activated into the Active duty force from the national guard force during the war. I've tried to emphasize this at the beginning and end of the WWII section. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the article looks good and i dont see why it doesnt go right to the FA review now?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I hope to put it up to FA as soon as possible, but first I am going through GA and Peer Review, then A-class, then FA. That way I can absorb as much constructive criticism as possible while improvine the article gradually. -Ed!^(talk) 18:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87

To me, it just strikes me as a bit bland and lacking in detail, especially for a division that fought through many of the major campaigns of the Second World War. Where's the use of the official history of the division, or more secondary sources like Atkinson that examine the various WWII campaigns? To me, it just doesn't seem to have enough detail; I realize there aren't exactly many divisional pages of a high quality to base this on, but I think more could be done. Skinny87 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look for some other sources to spice it up, but I'm not sure how much I can do. What parts do you think should be improved with more sources? -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnai

My only comments, as much has been covered by the reviewer, is that some of the info in the After Korea section might be better moved to the legacy section, specifically those about the 45th Infantry Brigade. Also there is some minor prose cleanup. Its not major though, so for a GA its probably okay.陣内 _Jinnai 22:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited the article, are there any prose issues you still see? and as for the legacy section, I thought the information on the 45th brigade belonged in the history because it is, by definition, an extension of the 45th Division's history. Which parts should be moved? -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opposing viewpoint is that the 45th Inf Bde is a separate formation almost entirely, sharing only a number. Unless anyone objects, I will move almost all of it to the 45 Inf Bde article. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really necessary. Consequently I've also put the 45th Infantry Brigade up for GA, and it covers its subject reasonably well. I just assumed that, since the 45th Brigade shares the 45th Division's lineage it would be appropriate to include more details of the 45th Brigade since it is technically the same unit. -Ed!^(talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, (1) both are formations, not units, being brigades/divs. Units stop at the battalion level, as far as I've ever heard. (2) One is a division and the other is a brigade - how can they be the same formation? IoH makes it clear - 'predecessor organization' - not the same formation. Buckshot06(prof) 18:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thank you for providing the source! It looks like you're right and the 45th Brigade info wasn't necessary after all. -Ed!^(talk) 18:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info about them passing on the lineage and heradly is still relevant to this topic though. However that's imo is more of its lasting legacy, ie that a brigade has taken the lineage and heraldry of a division which shared its number.
as for the prose, the only one I'm still wondering about is this line under Salerno and Anzio -- After linking up with the British Eighth Army that had advanced from the south, the combined force, under the Fifteenth Army Group was stalled when coming on the Gustav Line. -- Is the combined force refering to the 15th?陣内 _Jinnai 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06

Was the 45th Division the only one singled out for disbandment in 1968? If I remember rightly, the answer is no. A better answer may be at Manouver and Firepower: Divisions and Separate Brigades [1] which might give a picture with more context. Buckshot06(prof) 17:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Ed!^(talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel_66

I'm a little confused about the transformation of the OK Militia Regiment into the 142nd. Was it simply renamed as the 142nd or was there something a little more complex going on? At any rate reassigned doesn't seem to be the proper word to use. Fix this sentence: On September 16, 1940, the 45th Infantry Division was activated into the Active duty force. Clumsily worded, use either mobilized or federalized. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Ed!^(talk) 01:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham, B.S.

Just a few points that stick out:

Endashes are required in date ranges used in the article.
The "Honors" section is completely without any references, and requires them.
"Alledged War Crimes" - the "w" and "c" should not be capitalised.
I think {{reflist}} is preferred over <references/> in regards to citations.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these recommendations are fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]