Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/11th Airborne Division (United States)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:10, 6 August 2008 [1].

11th Airborne Division (United States)[edit]

Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article has gone through a Peer Review, a GA-Class Review and an A-Class Review, as well as a thorough copy-edit and a brilliant effort by User:Epbr123 to rectify MoS Issues and so forth. I believe it to be at FA-Class level, and as such submit it for review. Skinny87 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose

  • First impression: the lead is a bit heavy duty for this article--concision is always the best policy.
I don't see how the lead can be more concise, given its only three paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
  • Knollwood Maneuver
  • "Another senior officer took command of the division for the duration" --...and he's never named: find him; or strike this statement. Further as an aside, "senior officer" denotes ranks O-4 (Major) through O-6 (Colonel). The correct term would be "general officer" or "flag officer." Also, "for the duration" is a bit of a WWII era American idiom which might be lost on some readers.
Sorry, but you seem inconsistent yourself. You want the un-named officer struck through because he has no name, yet want it clarified that someone else took command when Swing was away in Sicily? None the less, I have corrected what you've asked of me in terms of rank and duration, but I will leave the reference to the senior officer in as otherwise the next part makes no sense.
To clarify: it is obvious that if the CO was transferred, that someone took his place. If the new CO is known by name, and the addition of this information is significant to the history of the Division; then the statement can stay with the addition of the interim CO's name. Otherwise, the entire statement adds no new information to the article, and should be removed. Lwnf360 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence also says that the new CO was in command "for the duration" i.e. until Aug. 1945 or later. Later in the article you say that Maj. Gen. Swing re-assumed command of the Division during the war. These statements contradict each other, and therefore one must be false. Lwnf360 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Major-General vs. major general" --inconsistent spelling within the article.
Inconsistencies corrected.
  • "It was chaired by Major-General Swing, who had returned from Sicily and resumed command of the division." -- you just said that another senior [general] officer assumed command for the duration! Get it straight.
Not really sure what to say here, given what I noted above, but the problem has been fixed.
See above for elaboration. Lwnf360 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 11th Airborne was chosen by the Swing Board" -- Swing Board: what on earth is that?...oh after it is mentioned, there is a lengthy-and-off-topic discussion of what it is.
I fail to see the problem here. I give a fairly concise description of the Swing Baord, what it did and why it affected the division.
The Swing Board and the Knollwood maneuvers are presented, textually, as distinct topics. They should therefore be segregated into separate paragraphs--and preferably the Swing Board should be presented first as a prelude to the maneuvers. If you don't want to separate them, then the language needs to be changed to integrate the discussion of the Swing Board into the discussion of the maneuvers. Lwnf360 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire Knollwood Maneuver section needs to be rewritten (content and prose). I'm not going to waste my time picking it apart any further, because I find yet-another glaring problem as I continue. Moving on.
  • Leyte
  • "After its participation in the Knollwood Maneuvers ended, the division remained in reserve until January 1944, when the division was moved by train from Camp Mackall to Camp Polk in Louisiana, for four weeks of maneuvers and tests to ensure that it was prepared to be transferred overseas and enter combat.[12]"--This sentence has 51 words, and expresses about five ideas. Cut it up.
Fixed.
  • "After this extra period of training and a waiting period of several months, the division staged at Camp Stoneman, California in April, and departed on a number of ships, arriving at Milne Bay between 25 May and 11 June.[12]" --Prose issues abound. In the previous sentence you told us they engaged in training for all of January 1944, reinforcing it here with "After this extra period of training and a waiting period of several months" does nothing for you. "Departed on a number of ships, arriving at Milne Bay" how about "sailed to Milne Bay"? This sentence should read something like: "In April 1944 the division staged at Camp Stoneman, California, and sailed to Milne Bay between 25 May and 11 June." --On a personal level, I feel that the European date convention has no place in an article about the American 11th Airborne Division: May 25 and June 11 feel so much better for me. But the article is "technically" correct, so I guess I shouldn't complain.
Fixed
  • "Between June and September the division became acclimatized to its new environment[acclimated to the south pacific] and continued its airborne training by training in the New Guinea jungle[.] and [The division] also conducting[ed] parachute drops around the airfield in Dobodura [New Guinea]."
Fixed.
  • I've gone three sentences into this section and found major problems with all three. That is my rule to stop. This section also needs a major rewrite for prose.
  • Luzon
  • "The 188th rapidly advanced and secured Nasugbu, with its 1st Battalion advancing up Highway 17, a major highway in Luzon, to deny the Japanese forces any chance to set up defenses, whilst its 2nd Battalion advanced south and secured the right flank of the division after crossing the River Lian"--50 words expressing about 4 ideas. I doubt that it is grammatically correct. Cut it up.
Fixed
  • "By 2:30 pm the 188th had reached the River Palico and secured a vital bridge over the river before it could be destroyed by Japanese sappers, then continued its advance by following Highway 17 to Tumalin, where it encountered heavier Japanese resistance."--same complaint as the last one.
Fixed
  • I'm done reading this article at this point. I feel comfortable saying that it needs a complete rewrite for both prose and content issues.
Lwnf360 (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to comment. I realize this is an FAC review and that everything isn't going to be peaches and roses, but I would expect even a thin veneer of politeness to be present in reviews. I found a number of your comments needlessly rude and overbearing. However, that said, I thank you for your criticism of the article and helping to improve it.
I apologize for my brusqueness (I have been in a bad mood for a few days), but honestly, I feel that this nomination should be withdrawn. There are content issues. That's a killer right there. On top of that there are major prose issues--nearly every sentence has stylistic or grammatical problems. There are entire paragraphs which are muddled and confused in purpose and meaning. There are entire sections, e.g. Knollwood Maneuver, which are the same. Things need to be taken back to the "topic sentence" level and reworked. I'm sorry to drop the hammer on the article (and I take it that you feel that I'm dropping the hammer on you too, which I do not mean to do.), but it is what it is. Lwnf360 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point on prose, but I don't know what you mean by the content. You highlighted the Knollwood Maneuver, but I fail to see what's wrong with it in terms of content, or how it is either muddled or confused. Skinny87 (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goddamit. Perhaps I was a little too quick to disagree as well - no, in fact, I was, and I apologize. I really want 11th Airborne to be a Featured Article, and obviously it isn't quite ready yet despite the work I've put in. That's annoying, and it's made me a little defensive. Looking at the article again, of course, you're right. The prose I can do, that's not a problem. But I do need to cut down on the details of the a bit and reorder it in the Knollwood Maneuver, I can see that. Rewrite it to make it less wordy, put more into what the 11th actually did during the exercise, there's barely anything on it. I'd like to keep this FAC open a day or so longer, if that's okay, so I can get any more criticism and make a list of what I need to do. I apologize for getting defensive. Skinny87 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I am by no means an arbiter of FAC. You are welcome to try and keep the nomination open as long as you can--but that pushes you and the other article contributors to work quickly if that is your choice. You're right that additional feedback will help you identify and work through the issues. Lwnf360 (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It won't close until after SandyGeorgia or Raul654 says so (usually Sandy). I'll give you a hand on the copyediting. Cam (Chat) 18:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment

  • Ref 8 is lacking publisher info.
I added the publisher as 'Moore County Airport, which I hope is okay. I didn't add that reference, someone else sneaked it in. If that's not good enough, I'll be happy to remove it completely. Skinny87 (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, sources and MoS look good.

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I'd appreciate if this could be closed and the FAC failed. This article obviously has some work to do before it can get to FA Class; I don't have te time right now, and to be honest it's stressing me out just thinking about sorting it out. I'll get to it later, in a few months perhaps. Skinny87 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw it; please be sure to leave the {{fac}} template in place until the bot goes through, per WP:FAC/ar. Hope to see you back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/11th_Airborne_Division_(United_States)/archive1&oldid=1078785003"