Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Provisional Marine Brigade

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1st Provisional Marine Brigade edit

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 07:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A1 Review Source quality looks good. Have you thought of searching on journal articles for this one? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a particular journal you would think could be useful? —Ed!(talk) 06:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scholar turns up
        1. The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade in Korea: Part II JD Manza - MARINE CORPS GAZETTE, 2000 - MARINE CORPS ASSOCIATION (Haven't checked reliability)
        2. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA525683
        • I have to say I'm surprised by the paucity of scholarly journal articles... I wonder how they slipped through the cracks. 1 Provisional is mainly used as an example / exemplar of small insertions (landings, air landing, etc) or mentioned in passing in relation to OOB litanies on Korea. But the list is also fairly book heavy, and maybe publishing in this area has been book heavy. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm pretty sure I've seen an article in a Leatherneck in the last few years, but unless you have a subscription, you can't access thier online archives. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can also try this... even provisional units maintained chornological records. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Publisher locations: Gugeler, Russell A. (2005); Ecker, Richard E. (2004); Donovan, James A. (1992);
    • London, United Kingdom: Catchpole, Brian (2001)
    • Broken ref links: Varhola 2004, p. 106 (wrong year); Alexander 2001, p. 131 (No such reference, wrong year?); Fehrenbah 2001, p. 124 (spelling?); Millett 2000, p. 532 (not given in bibliography)
    • Add to bib: Millett 2000, p. 532
Resolved comments from bahamut0013
Comments by baha
    • The unit number shorthand (i.e. 3/5) is rather informal, and not appropriate. In most instances, you can write out the name for better form, especially when listing the battalions in a regiment (i.e. replace "1/6, 2/6, and 3/6" with "1st, 2nd, and 3rd Battalions").
      • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid that simply appending "Marines" after the shorthand doesn't satisfy me. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed the links to say "1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions" —Ed!(talk) 03:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love the detail of the Korean War history, but it seems to lean unbalanced in that direction compared to the other periods. There has to be a way to not make that three-month period seem to dominate the unit's history without trimming that valuable content. Perhaps you can flesh out the other three active periods a bit more, if possible? I know that referencing is heavy towards Korea, and if you can't, I certainly wouldn't oppose over this.
      • The problem I've found is the brigade's other actions were so brief they merit only a line or two in books. I might be able to add another source on the Guam operation but in the eyes of history, the brigade is by far most well known for its actions in Korea. —Ed!(talk) 04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Marine" and "Marines" should be consistantly capitalized through the article. Even the New York Times agrees.
      • I believe this has been done. —Ed!(talk) 04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are still a few instances that need capitalization (mostly plurals in the Korea section). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've gone through that section and fixed all of the instances I found. Now I think I got them all. —Ed!(talk) 05:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I read unit histories or battle summaries, I expect to see a few names (commanders, notable awardees, etc.). Seems like this article only mentions Craig and higher commands. The article could benefit from some more of the "human side" of the brigade.
      • I've named the commander of the brigade in each iteration, unfortunately none of the other Marines in the unit was particularly notable as far as I can tell — no Medals of Honor and no Navy Crosses mentioned. —Ed!(talk) 04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm. It seems improbable that there were no other notable members, but I'll take your word on it. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I went though the list of articles that link to this one, and aside from the commanders I didn't find anyone else. I suppose some links could be to the respective battalion articles but this one was around long enough before I touched it I feel like anyone known for being in it should have such a mention in their own article if they are notable enough to deserve a mention here. —Ed!(talk) 05:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Greenlinks: while redirects are not bad in and of themselves, the sheer number of them seem to give off a sloppy feel to me. A few of them seem to overlink (as in, several different redirects all leading to the same article in a way that multiple blue links would be overlinking).
      • I've trimmed a few more links. —Ed!(talk) 04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A3, 4, and 5 seem pretty good. A little bit more attention and this will easily be ready for FAC. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've responded to everything. —Ed!(talk) 04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Ref the unit shorthand mentioned above - this sort of numbering convention is very common in historical writing about US military units, especially Marine units. I wouldn't consider it informal or inappropriate at all in an article about Marine units. Typical convention is to use the full name first with the shorthand in parenthesis and then use the shorthand for future references.
      • I expanded each to "x/x Marines" which is more well known (just like the Army's x-x Infantry) —Ed!(talk) 04:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source comment - the Marine Corps Gazette is quite reputable as a source. I wouldn't worry about using it.
      • I'll look through the archives to see if I can find anything. —Ed!(talk) 04:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall writing style is good and IMO avoids bias.
    • I think the Korean weight of the history is somewhat unavoidable as this was the Provisional Brigade's main action. The Guam action could be extended a bit, I think, but it will be hard to do the same for Cuba.
    • Not sure if using a temporary badge as the unit image is a good choice. I know it's got strong historical association, but it might warrant some more detail in the Iceland section if it's going to remain.
      • Do you think I should use some other image in its infobox? —Ed!(talk) 04:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that Iceland doesn't have a long section in the article, I think it might be advisable. Since this was a provisional unit I doubt that there was any long-term identification with that badge. I think one reason it's so prominently featured is that Marine units don't normally wear shoulder patches (and in fact they were prohibited by the Corps in 1947 according to this.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Partly true (I was actually going to post that link myself to demonstrate my next point). While the wearing of patches on uniforms was discontinued, most Marine units continued to keep (or create) unit logos, and use them as an identification symbol on forms, signs, placards, etc. I think given the lack of any other logo for the brigade (official or otherwise), the use of the polar bear would necessarily be inappropriate (especially with the given caption); although it is indeterminant if that logo was used subsequently. But it's your judgment call. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know they use unit symbols and the like...it's the shoulder patch that was pretty much discontinued. I'm not especially wedded to keeping or removing the bear, but I did want to point out that it could be misunderstood by folks who didn't read deeply into the article. Your call, really. I won't fuss either way.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would agree. I tried to make the caption indicate this more clearly but if it doesn't work I can change it. The problem is this unit was so radically different each time I feel like few other images would adequately belong in the infobox conveying its identity. Any ideas? —Ed!(talk) 05:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good article on the whole.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportIntothatdarkness (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:Support
    • There are four dab links (Battle of Guam, Far East Command, Pacific Theatre, and Salient);
    • One of the images is missing alt text (caption "Marines carry wounded on a stretcher during the Battle of Pusan Perimeter");
    • External links all check out (no action required);
    • The citation checker reveals 4 errors (Catchpole 2001, p. 25, Fehrenbach 2001, p. 127, Appleman 1998, p. 464 and Fehr127 - all errors reported as "Multiple references contain the same content");
    • Some of your timings need a colon, for instance 1600 needs to be 16:00 per WP:MOSTIME;
    • This is a little repetitive: "In each of its iterations, the brigade was typically not organized as a permanent formation. Typically it was..." (specifically 'typically' used twice);
    • This seems poorly worded: "occupying 26 towns and all rail traffic in the area." Specifically I'm not sure how to occupy rail traffic... perhaps "controlling all rail traffic" or something similar?;
    • Did the Marines suffer any casualties in Cuba?
      • None are mentioned in any of the sources. Sounds like it was just a police action. —Ed!(talk) 21:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In May of 1940", shouldn't this just be "In May 1940";
      • As it stands it is grammatically correct. I believe in American English it would be corrected to "May, 1940"
    • Repetitive: "However, as post-war military spending was drastically cut, the brigade at this time was drastically undermanned." Specifically use of 'drastically' twice;
    • Not sure about the capitalisation here: "The Force surged forward";
      • I'd actually go with either "it surged forward" or "they surged forward" ... the problem is the Task Force is treated as singular in the previous sentence and plural ("they") in the following sentence. Either approach is okay, but it's better to be consistent with this, in the whole article in fact. - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "inadvertently discovering" seems a strange construction to me, maybe "encountering";
    • Some inconsistency here: "NK 4th Division" and "4th North Korean Division" in places;
    • Is there really a need to wikilink "killed" (currently linked the Killed in Action) (very minor almost petty point I accept);
      • I thought it important to link to an explanation of how the number is calculated (why people who died of sickness or non-combat wounds aren't "killed in action" —Ed!(talk) 21:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • These two paras are repetetive: "On the morning of September 1 the 1st and 2nd Regiments of the NK 9th Division, in their first offensive of the war, stood only a few miles short of Yongsan after a successful river crossing and penetration of the American line.[100][101] Division commander Major General Pak Kyo Sam felt the chances of capturing Yongsan were strong. On the morning of September 1, with only the shattered remnants of E Company at hand, the US 9th Infantry Regiment, US 2nd Infantry Division had virtually no troops to defend Yongsan.[100] Division commander Major General Lawrence B. Keiser formed ad-hoc units from his support troops but they were not enough to counter the North Korean attack." Specifically they both start with "on the morning of September 1";
    • Some inconsistency with presentation of Marine battalions: in places "2/10 Marines battalion" in others "The 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines". Personnally I'm more of a fan of the latter but I think a Marine might correct me on it! Whatever you chose needs to be consistent though;
    • "The company with help from Marine tank fire eventually overcame heavy resistance, but this early morning battle for the line of departure delayed the planned attack." Which company?
    • Some inconsistency with use of "marine" and "Marine" in places; and
    • You might consider wikilinking "3.5-inch rocket launchers" (pretty sure these would have been M20s). Anotherclown (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. I have responded to everything. —Ed!(talk) 21:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Ed!, I'm sorry I was behind on my A-class work and couldn't get to your current FAC before it went up. I still haven't had a chance to look at it, but no one is complaining about it. Would you rather I do that one first, or ignore that as long as there are no problems and start here first? - Dank (push to talk) 05:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm agreed with all of Anotherclown's prose notes above except the one I mentioned. It will help if you could fix those before I get started. Also please run down the checklist if you haven't had a chance to do that yet ... note that "Acronyms" isn't on the checklist any more, there were a lot of hard questions about acronyms that we didn't have consistent answers for. - Dank (push to talk) 05:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've fixed everything above. Let me know. —Ed!(talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to everyone for the slow response. I have had a lot of trouble finding time to work on Wikipedia, but I fully intend to address everything above as soon as I can. —Ed!(talk) 05:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-ordinator comment: this A-class review has been open for 28 days now. It appears that the nominator may have satisfied the comments above, so before I close it, could reviewers please state whether or not their comments have been addressed and whether or not they support or oppose the article's promotion to A-class? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have left a note on Anotherclown's talk page asking him to revisit this review before I close it. He is quite busy in real life at the moment so may not get to it for a couple of days. I think, however, in the issues of fairness to the nominator that this review should stay open until then. I trust that no one will have an issue with this but if there are any concerns, please let me know and we can discuss. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All my points have been dealt with so I have supported now. Apologies for the delay. Work... Anotherclown (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/1st_Provisional_Marine_Brigade&oldid=1136426419"