Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United States Army

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.

United States Army

The article is extensive, has a large number of images and references, and is well sourced. It also has many blue links and very few red ones. -Ed! (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now. I don't think there are enough references. The structure section is uncited as is the history section for the most part. That being said, the prose seems good and it seems comprehensive to me. I don't like the famous soldiers section, it is very subjective and not really neccessary in this article. Is there not a category? Woody (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This should be peer reviewed instead. The "See Also" section can be eliminated by integrating the links into the main body. Entire sections, as Woody observes, are completely unreferenced. The existing references need to be formatted per WP:CITE. SoLando (Talk) 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the whole section about the Barbary Wars in the 1800s is out of place since only the navy and the marines did play any role in this conflict. An earlier invasion of the Algerian pirates in the US was solved without bloodshed by paycheck diplomacy, so all in all no reason for including this in an article about the army. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lead should be expanded, and the article is quite unreferenced - we have entire sections unreferenced. I would also propose a peer review for it. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Eurocopter said, needs peer review first and many more citations. Famous soldiers also should go to their own article or category. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am finding silly errors or style errors in it (It lists the HQ of US Army North as being Houston, Texas? Is that right?). It does use a few odd phrases (It states the US army as having sent millions of men to the front in WW1 and being instrumental in the final push. Many US troops never even got to the front by the crucial phase of the war, milling about in rear assembly areas for training. The references are pretty darn poor as well. Could do with alot more inline considering how many qualifiers are in the text. Talking about future warrior like it will happen is almost comical as well. Apart from that though, on the whole it is well written and not /too/ far off. Narson (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas, and Fifth Army/ARNORTH is indeed there. But all your other concern are valid. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object not enough refs and the list of famous people who were also in the army needs to be removed. Especially anyone in the their 20s in the 1940s would very likely have served and then you would end up with a massive list of Americans born between 1915 and 1920 roughly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous editors. It needs a hard-nosed peer review. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:44, 14 January 2008 (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.