Talk:26th Infantry Division (United States)/GA1

26th & 29th Divisions

The text reads: "Following the end of the Cold War, the Army began a process of downsizing its forces. The Army reactivated the 29th Infantry Division and began reorganizing its forces and further consolidating them. As a result, the Army decided to downsize the 26th Infantry Division into a brigade, and put it under the command of the 29th Infantry Division." The 29th was reactivated in 1985, not after the end of the Cold War, and its activation that year had no impact on the post-Cold War inactivation of the 26th that took place years later in the 1990s. These were two separate events.VilePig (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What led to the demise of the 26th was a situation largely of its own making. The 26th, as well as the 50th Armored Division in New Jersey and the 42d Infantry Division in New York, were woefully undermanned, as enlistment in the Guard was simply unattractive to so many. Even worse, to make their attendance statistics look better, units of all three divisions were submitting grossly inflated numbers, when in reality often only 10% of a unit's personnel were showing up for drills. Others hadn't been seen in years and were "ghosts." The Chief of the Army National Guard became aware of this situation and, having had enough, he consolidated the elements of the three divisions down to one. This was covered in the 1990s in an article in the Army Times.VilePig (talk)

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review posted shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There are a lot of red links. Are all of these notable enough for their own articles?

   • I'm convinced they are. All of them are US Army Regiment or brigade articles, large organizations with a long precedence for their own articles. —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   • The coverage of the unit's actions in World War I seems short compared the coverage of the same in World War II. Most of the World War I paragraph is spent discussing its formation and the post-war years, and very of it discussing the almost full year they spent in combat. Was there really nothing of interest to report?

   • I've had a difficult time finding info specific to the division, but I did expand the World War I narrative. —Ed!^(talk) 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   • Europe section, "The division was then assigned to XX Corps.[9] The 26th then shifted". A lot of "then"s.

   • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • See my comments on the WWI coverage in the prose/MOS section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • The memorial image in the Europe section is lacking a source.

   • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article, but there are a few issues with prose, MOS and coverage that should be dealt with before the article is of GA status. Also, one minor issue with an image. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I have responded to all of your concerns. How does it look now? —Ed!^(talk) 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm passing this article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)