Talk:741st Tank Battalion (United States)

741st Tank Battalion (United States) was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 26, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

Military history: North America / United States / World War II

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Suggestion

G'day, I came across this article while scanning the list at WP:GAN. I only had a quick look but it looks quite good. I have updated its assessment from stub to B class, as I believe that it meets the B class criteria. One suggestion I have is to include mention of the unit's brief existence post war (1949 to 1952) in the "Post war" section. Currently it is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body of the prose, but the lead shouldn't really contain information that isn't in the main section of the article. Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:741st Tank Battalion (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 14:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've done a lot of work on military units on Wikipedia, so I think I can help guide your work on the article. —Ed!^(talk) 14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section should be longer and summarize the entire article. See WP:LEAD.
Was the battalion given a distinctive unit insignia? Typically, this is the top image in the infobox.
Its exact activation and inactivation dates should be indicated on the box, not just the years. See: WP:MILMOS#DATERANGE
The article needs a section with an order of battle or organization information. I'd point you to the Eighth Army Ranger Company article to see what this looks like. We should know how many companies there were, what their armament was, and what the makeup of the HHC was. As this was an independent unit, I assume it had some signal, ISR or military police assets. See also 1st Provisional Marine Brigade for another way to organize this section.
The "Breakout" section should be expanded. Right now it has a very cursory explanation of the battalion's role on the fighting. You might consider consulting the division WWII combat chronicles during the time this battalion was attached to them. The end narrative ideally would look something like 45th Infantry Division (United States), with a little bit of detail and context about what was going on.
"On 27 August, it had the good fortune to be attached to the 28th Infantry Division" -- we can't word things like this, as the encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral.
Same with "the battalion fought many small unit engagements, deftly stalking the German tanks in twos and threes until they could destroy or immobilized them with shots from the flanks or rear."
In the "Awards and decorations" section, you should include campaign participation credit. I'd direct you again to the 45th Infantry Division page.

I'll be glad to help you through the process of getting the article up to GA. Let me know any questions. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note editor indicated to me on my talk page he won't be available to edit the article until the end of the month. I informed him I am fine with waiting until then. —Ed!^(talk) 15:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded the following from my talk page. —Ed!^(talk) 12:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned there were some points which I wanted to discuss further or get clarification on. These are:

You say "On 27 August, it [the 741st] had the good fortune to be attached to the 28th Infantry Division" is not neutral. In a reading of the full sentence, the "good fortune" has to do with spending 2 days marching through the streets of Paris versus getting shot at by Germans. I submit that remains a neutral statement (know ANYBODY who thinks getting shot at [by Germans or anybody else] is a good thing?) You don't even have to know what a revelry the Liberation of Paris was compared to the alternative to understand that this was good fortune (it was also apparently chance that they got picked for the duty).

The presentation of fact in this instance may be obscured by the wording. To call this series of events "good fortune" is opinion-leaning language. Fortune is not something we can quantify. Unless you have a source saying that there was some reason this was particularly lucky for this unit, or some historical viewpoint that it avoided some disasterous situation, I would contend that "good fortune" is not a fact that can be reliable sourced in a neutral narrative. —Ed!^(talk) 15:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also take exception to "the battalion fought many small unit engagements, deftly stalking the German tanks in twos and threes until they could destroy or immobilized them with shots from the flanks or rear." All the sources on this point to the confused and fluid nature of the battlefield (poor visibility due to bad weather, hilly terrain and heavy forestation), lack of a contiguous front, and the tremendous battle experience and superior firepower/armor of their German opponents. I would argue that "deftly" is an accurate—even understated—term to describe their technique in stalking (also an accurate descriptor fully conforming to the hunting definition—for both sides) the German tanks. For a completely overblown case of partisanship regarding the engagement, see the text of the citation describing the engagement! The results speak for themselves in the count of vehicles destroyed: 27 tanks + 5 armored vehicles versus 8 US tanks lost (including demolition of 2 mired tanks). Suppose I could add that to the text to substantiate the statement. Thoughts?

I would call this "effective" then. We're not here to pass judgement on whether or not this was a good unit, we're only here to say what it did and let the reader draw those conclusions. —Ed!^(talk) 15:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding awards and decorations: I put campaign participation credit in the infobox; thought it was repetitous to include it in the body. What is standard—or better yet, "preferred"—practice? I think in many cases where I have seen it in the body or in infobox and body, it is due to a certain intellectual sloppiness, maybe even an desire to pad the entry. Afterall, the infobox says "battles" and it shows as "engagements". Maybe the latter should be changed to "campaigns" so there is no ambiguity.

Yes, this is just an opinion. If that is your personal preference, then it is fine. —Ed!^(talk) 15:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate your feedback. Working on the "Breakout" narrative, but have addressed the other issues not discussed here, though most don't show yet. BTW, had to do that unit coat of arms from scratch (it's been posted). That was a chalenge.

Bilhartz (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been another couple of weeks, well past the end of July, and the nominator hasn't edited on Wikipedia since the day after posting the above. It might be appropriate to give a deadline for some concrete action on the remaining issues: this nomination has been on hold for a month and a half already. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Failing it for now, unfortunately, since the nom disappeared. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Haven't seen any changes. —Ed!^(talk) 02:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M3 vs. M5

Contributor 70.184.116.25 changed equipment from M5 Stuart to M3 Stuart. That is incorrect and I have reverted the text. By the time 741st deployed to Europe in late 1943, production of Stuarts had rolled over to M5/M5A1 from M3 variants. TO&E 17-25, dated 15 Sep 1943, which controlled the 741st Tk Bn, also specified the M5A1. There were likely some substitutions, especially among units that had already deployed in the Mediterranean Theater, but M3 production ended in October 1943. By D-Day, and through replacement of damaged tanks thereafter, the pipeline would have effectively eliminated any earlier M3 holdouts in the ETO. For a thorough treatment, see Zaloga, referenced in 741st Tk Bn main article, pp 22-23 and 32-33. See also Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, British and American Tanks of World War II: The complete illustrated history of British, American and Commonwealth Tanks, 1939-1945, New York: Arco Publishing Co., 1969, p. 93. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilhartz (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]