Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/13th Airborne Division (United States)
I have just finished writing this article today, and I believe it to be up to the standards of at least a B-Class Article. Any comments or reviews of the article would be extremely welcome. Skinny87 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Buckshot06
[edit]- You are going to move the sourced list of units of the division back into the main article, aren't you? Also appropriate might be to pare down now the references so as list only the ones you've used.
Done - Also, looking at the 82 ABD page, the exact nature of the transfer of troops from the 13 ABD is unclear. Were any units transferred? Did the 13 ABD personnel simply bring 82 ABD units up to strength? You could expand on that and put a note in the 82 ABD article as well.
Buckshot06(prof) 01:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I will indeed - should they go under something like 'Divisional Order of Battle'? Skinny87 (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Added in, and did the same for the 17th Airborne Division to boot! Skinny87 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- In regards to the transfer of personnel, there are two problems. The first, and foremost, is the fact that there is practically no information about the transfer of personnel other than the referenced texts saying in essence 'they were transferred'. I scraped together this article from half a dozen books, and the majority from about three, as an airborne division that does little fighting and makes no combat drops doesn't really merit a mention in what little literature there is on airborne warfare. So unfortunately I can't add anything else for the very reason that I can't find anything else :( The second reason is that the article on the 82nd is rather long and complex, and having been here less than a month I don't feel confident enough to begin editing such a large article - it's kinda daunting. Hope that answers your questions, and I hope it won't affect the article from going to B-Class and possibly even GA-Class Skinny87 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- No of course not. I'm a real grognard on these sorts of questions, and it's a very minor point. With the 82nd, or any article, I'd say, judging from your contributions so far, referenced, sourced, well-balanced for potential controversies, I'd very much encourage WP:BOLD changes from you. One other point. FA-class articles have references & notes - nothing else. Any external links should be either one of those two, and see-alsos have all been moved into the text. Buckshot06(prof) 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, thank-you kindly for the complement! Is this article upto B-Class, do you think? I'll place it for GA Nom later Skinny87 (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- No of course not. I'm a real grognard on these sorts of questions, and it's a very minor point. With the 82nd, or any article, I'd say, judging from your contributions so far, referenced, sourced, well-balanced for potential controversies, I'd very much encourage WP:BOLD changes from you. One other point. FA-class articles have references & notes - nothing else. Any external links should be either one of those two, and see-alsos have all been moved into the text. Buckshot06(prof) 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- In regards to the transfer of personnel, there are two problems. The first, and foremost, is the fact that there is practically no information about the transfer of personnel other than the referenced texts saying in essence 'they were transferred'. I scraped together this article from half a dozen books, and the majority from about three, as an airborne division that does little fighting and makes no combat drops doesn't really merit a mention in what little literature there is on airborne warfare. So unfortunately I can't add anything else for the very reason that I can't find anything else :( The second reason is that the article on the 82nd is rather long and complex, and having been here less than a month I don't feel confident enough to begin editing such a large article - it's kinda daunting. Hope that answers your questions, and I hope it won't affect the article from going to B-Class and possibly even GA-Class Skinny87 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Added in, and did the same for the 17th Airborne Division to boot! Skinny87 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I will indeed - should they go under something like 'Divisional Order of Battle'? Skinny87 (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)