Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/8th Armored Division (United States)

U.S. 8th Armored Division

I've made some fairly substantial edits to this article. I'd love some feedback on what else would help improve this.--Lepeu1999 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both below - exactly the kind of help I was looking for! Starting work on the improvements.--Lepeu1999 15:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some substantial additions to this based on the suggestions received. I know there is some clean-up still needed and am working on it, but I would love for this to be reviewed again as I believe it can 'graduate' from 'Start' class.--Lepeu1999 20:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81

Its a good start, but the article does need work. My sugestions for improvement are:

Expand the History section. This can be accomplished by:
- Discussing the events sorrounding the divisions creation and the events surrounding its dissolution.
- See if you can find anything about the battles that they were engaged in and briefly sum up the 8ths role in them.
- Lastly, see if any additional information regarding the liberation of Halberstadt-Zwieberge, as that sounds like a major hilight of the 8ths campaign.
Increase the inline citations.
Consider adding the smaller number version of the inline citations rather than having external links for them.
Find more references. Admittedly, this can be hard, but it will be worth it in the long run.
See if any information on the type of armour they were using is avaliable; while I assume they would use Sherman Tanks, other vehicals could be in there that would be worth mentioning.

Those are my suggestions. I otherwise enjoyed reading the article. Keep up the good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

TomStar81 got most of the major points, so here are a few more minor ones:

The listing of commanders and honors could be better done in the infobox (unless there's a potential for significant material beyond just the lists).
The lead section should be lengthened (as the article itself grows).
One very obvious piece of missing information (which could be nicely worked into a table together with the contents of the "Composiion" section: what was the strength (men, tanks, etc.) of the division?
I would suggest converting all the inline citations to footnotes here, as working with website citations in Harvard-style is rather a pain (in my opinion, anyways).

Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cla68

Just to emphasize a couple of points made by TomStar81, the article needs to connect the division to the "big picture", i.e. why the divsion was formed, how it was planned that they should be involved in WWII in Europe, their role in the overall Alled strategy for prosecuting the war, and their impact on the overall victory in the war. Cla68 10:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you mean more then I've already added to the Stateside section?--Lepeu1999 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Throughout its history, what operations or organizations was the unit specifically assigned to and why? For example: "In January, 1945 the division was assigned to Bradley's Third Army to support the Allied drive on the Rhine Valley" or "Having decided that additional armor was needed to stop the German offensive in the Battle of the Bulge, Eisenhower assigned the 8th to assault the German positions at..." I know that I'm taking license with history, I'm just using these as hypothetical examples to sho how to relate the unit's history to the larger situation that existed at any given point. Cla68 06:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman

Here are some thoughts:

The Honors section at the botton is surpurfulous. You mention the awards in the infobox and don't add anything of meaning here, get rid of it.
The table of contents is HUGE and frightening.
Expand intro... why should I read the rest of the article?
I'm not a big fan on all the bullet points... seems like there are too many. This might be a place to shorten the Table of Contents.

I'll be honest with you, this article really didn't do much for me. It's not that the article is bad, but rather I'm not big into lists and even the prose sections seemed like lists. "German losses were 8 tanks, 1 anti-aircraft gun, 1 anti-tank gun and 1 halftrack. Division losses were an additional 6 tanks destroyed and an 4 disabled as well as heavy personnel casualties. The week's action resulted in the loss of 50% of the personnel the 110th and 111th Panzer-Grenadier Divisions had brought into the Saar-Moselle triangle." It might simply be a matter that I might not be your target audience. The TOC was absolutely frightening. Again, take these comments for what its worth... just one man's opinion and he's probably wrong. Balloonman 08:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Another thought I had last night, would there be any way to add tables to the article? Rather than have numerous bullet points use a table and grid to have side by side comparisons of the units? I would encourage this primarily in the sections dealing where you are describing the compliment of the companies.Balloonman 16:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]