Talk:174th Infantry Brigade (United States)

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Mikeofv in topic Origins
Good article174th Infantry Brigade (United States) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 4, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Shoulder Patch

edit

It should be noted that the 174th INF BDE now wears the shoulder patch of First U.S. Army. Shoulder Patch 174th INF BDE

BerkHolter (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:174th Infantry Brigade (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    This sentence, in the Organization section, ---> "and 3rd battalion, 309th Combat Support Regiment, headquartered at Syracuse, New York", needs to be fixed. In the Origins section, this sentence ---> "After the fall of Port Hudson it was severely engaged at Cox's plantation, under command of Maj. George Keating, losing 18 killed, 29 wounded and 7 missing, the heaviest loss sustained by any regiment in the action", needs to be re-written a little, for it to actually make sense.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    It wouldn't hurt much to link "Fort Drum, New York" in the Organization section. It would be a good idea to link full dates, per here. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here. In the WWII section, it would be best if "29 December" be "December 29", since that's how the article is going by. Same section, "23rd" change it to "January 23". Also, the dates really need to be formatted if the article is going by "the month and date".
    Check, changes by me. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):  
    It would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} format. In the Origins section, is there a source for this ---> "During the preliminary operations against Port Hudson, in the 3rd Brigade, Augur's division, 19th Corps, it skirmished on the Clinton plank road, was engaged at Plains store, and then took part in the long siege of Port Hudson, during which it sustained a loss of 14 killed, wounded, and missing"?
    Half-check. The references still need to be used in the cite web format. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
    Done. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 00:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 07:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Issues taken care of. How does it look now? -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 14:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Ed who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Organization Section

edit

...3rd Battalion, 313th Logistics Support Battalion,[6] which are both headquartered at Fort Devens, New York

This should be "Devens, Massachusetts".

BerkHolter (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by BerkHolter (talkcontribs) 00:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nickname and other misc

edit

The Brigade is not known as "The Away Brigade" the brigade is considered an "Away Brigade". This mean our mission is only accomplished at sites other than our home location. It is a description of the type of Brigade (Mission) and not a nickname.

Also the phrase "the brigade was mobilized" is slightly inaccurate. The brigade is Tri-Component which means there are Active Duty, Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers assigned to it. The brigades is active at all times, not mobilized for missions such as the one at Fort Dix. The BDE also has up to 50% of it's reservists (TPU's) on active duty at any given time on a rotational basis. To this end the brigade is "Down Range" conducting missions all the time. The brigade just returned from Camp Shelby (GA), Fort Irwin (CA) and Fort Bragg (NC). The BDE will be at Fort Stewart (GA) and Kuwait over the next year.

BerkHolter (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ammend the article as necessary but be sure to add sources for anything you say. The article needs verifiablility for all of the information. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

BDE is no longer in New York

edit

The 174th Brigade has moved to Fort, Dix New, Jersey.

V/R SFC Brad Amstutz 1-314th IN BN 174th IN BDE S3 Operations NCOIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.215.21.2 (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Based at..."

edit

If the Brigade's headquarters is at Fort Dix, how is it "...based at Fort Drum", as stated in the lead paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.76.169.140 (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 174th Infantry Brigade (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 174th Infantry Brigade (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Origins

edit

This Brigade is NOT descended from a Civil War unit. Official Lineage & Honors certificate is included in the text as an inline reference. Mikeofv (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply