Wikipedia:Peer review/28th Infantry Division (United States)/archive1

28th Infantry Division (United States)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…This article underwent extensive revision, expansion, and increased sourcing throughout October 2013. Is it ready for an upgrade to B-Class??? Also, any other CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM will be appreciated. Thanks, User:JCHeverly 23:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, good work so far. I don't think it is quite ready for B class yet, but it probably wouldn't need to much extra work to get it there (it probably even has the legs for GA if you are keen). Anyway, these are my suggestions:

as the table of contents is quite long, you might consider using a TOC limiter, for example {{TOC limit}};
per WP:SECTIONCAPS "Movie Portrayals" should be "Movie portrayals", same same "Pre-28th Lineage" --> "Pre-28th lineage";
in the Pre-28th Lineage section, the first paragraph appears to be uncited. For B class within the Milhist project, we usually ask for every paragraph be cited, with a bare minimum of one inline citation at the end of the paragraph;
"he wisely stated their activities were" --> be careful of your wording here. "Wisely" sounds like you are making a judgement, which is against our neutral point of view policy. I'd suggest just saying "he stated their activities were..." (simply removing "wisely");
date format: I'd suggest just spelling them out in full. Based on what I've seen at GA and FA levels, there is no need to abbreviate. For instance, "11 Oct. 1917" --> 11 October 1917";
same as above for ranks: at GA and beyond I believe it is more common to spell them out in full. For instance, "Maj. Gen" --> "Major General";
"Camp Hancock, Ga" --> spell out in full for non US readers: "Camp Hancock, Georgia";
in the Pre-28th Lineage section, you have a couple of short paragraphs which I'd look to combine;
"gained fame as a result of its gallant stand" --> again this is possibly a point of view issue. Probably best to drop the word "gallant" here;
wikilink John Pershing, American Expeditionary Force, and the various campaigns in the World War I section;
KIA and WIA --> "2,165 killed", "11,974 wounded";
terminology: make sure you are consistent. For example currently you have "World War I" and "First World War", as well as "World War II" and "Second World War";
the link at the end of the final paragraph in the World War I section probably should be converted into a proper inline citation using the ref tags;
if possible, I'd suggest replacing the dot points in the Interwar period with a paragraph of prose, additionally, the information in the section should be referenced with an inline citation;
The prose of the World War II section seems to jump straight into the fighting on the Siegried Line without providing enough context for the reader. For instance, what year was this? I assume 1944, but the section doesn't really state it. I'd also suggest adding a paragraph before this on the division's preparations prior to entering combat. For instance, the dot points above the section mention activation at Camp Livingston, perhaps you could write a paragraph mentioning this, as well as training and then how and when it embarked for the ETO?
A number of the paragraphs in the Post World War II service section appear uncited;
the Operation Iraqi Freedom section appears to be uncited, as per above, for B class within the Milhist project we tend to ask for at least one citation at the end of each paragraph;
along with the above, I think the Operation Iraqi Freedom section might be too long compared to the other sections. Is there perhaps a way that this could be condensed using a more "broad brush" approach? Currently it seems a bit unbalanced in this regard;
the Legacy section also needs citations for B class or higher;
in the Campaign Participation Credit, I think Antietam should be linked;
if possible, I'd suggest adding ISBN or OCLC numbers for the works cited in the Bibliography. These can usually be found on worldcat.org: [1];
Anyway, that's all from me at the moment. Good luck with taking the article further. When you feel it is ready for a B class assessment, please list it for review at WP:MHA. If you have any questions about my suggestions, please feel free to ask for clarification. Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your many suggestions. I'll study them and make them as time permits.User:JCHeverly 01:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments fom Hchc2009:

Would be great to see this up at GA in due course.
Some parts could be wikilinked to add value for the reader; "Benjamin Franklin", "Henry Hoyt" etc. would be worth doing, for example
Worth checking it through for close paraphrasing/copyright violations. The majority of the "Pre-28th Lineage" section, for example, is taken word-for-word from the copyrighted PA National Guard website.
The World War II section would be better expressed in prose, rather than bullet points.
I'd echo AustralianRupert's comment above about sorting out the referencing. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]