Talk:45th Infantry Division (United States)/GA1

GA Review

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

I'm quite interested in reviewing this and will read it and submit a review in the next couple of days. Ranger Steve (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is fantastic. It's pretty well written, well referenced and quite detailed. There are only a few niggles that I've listed below, but I suspect it would only take a half hours work to make this GA.

1. Writing. There are only a few places where the article could perhaps be rejigged. In particular:

• In the lead, the start of the second para is a little awkward, making quite a leap from the 19th Century to WWII. Could the bit about its lineage be added to the first para? BTW, I assume it should be 19 and not 18th Century?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Could the lead perhaps be expanded a little to cover the fact the division participated in 4 amphibious assaults in WWII? At the moment it only appears to suggest 3 actual assaults.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• History para 2 - Can the short 2nd sentence be incorporated into the text a little better?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• History para 3 - mentions the word swastika 3 times in quick succession.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• In Sicily, para 2, could you wikilink to the battle itself? Perhaps rather than "conducted an amphibious assault" it could say, something like "the division was one of the leading units in the amphibious assault...." to recognise its role.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Just an idea, but seeing as the Salerno and Anzio campaigns are neatly broken into 2 paragraphs, perhaps the sub heading could be split too?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Korean War, para 2 - it might be worth wikilinking to this section of the Korean War article so that readers can quickly understand why, how and where the front had stabilized. It helps make the general situation clearer for the rest of the article.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Factually Accurate and Verifiable

• There is only 1 ref for the entire first para of the Alleged War crimes section. I'd have said another ref may be needed to clarify the second sentence.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Reading the ref for the 300 massacred Germans, it only says neutralized which doesn't necessarily imply killed, and definitely not massacred. Reading the article on the Dachau massacre it does seem that there is some confusion about exactly how many men were killed. Could this section be expanded a little to cover the subject in a bit more detail (at least the question of how many died), or alternatively simplify it by removing numbers all together?
  • Agreed. The number is best left out. —Ed!^(talk) 00:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

3. Broadness One article that links here refers to the Division as the "Thunderbirds" as if it is a nickname. Aside from the mention of the insignia this isn't otherwise covered in the article. Do you know anymore about it?

The infobox clarifies this, and it also provides a ref for the division nickname. —Ed!^(talk) 00:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral No probs.

5. Stable Would certainly appear to be.

6. Images All good. More photos would always be welcome but I appreciate they probably aren't too easy to come by.

I'm going to reread this later to just see if I've missed anything, but I'm fairly sure it'll only be small points. All in all a great little article and another example of wikipedia working! I'll hold the article while we work through the improvements. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed all of the things you have pointed out to this point. Thank you for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 00:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed two wikilinks. The only other thing I'd suggest is a wikilink to here. Also, I notice that there are refs for every notable member of the division, except Bill Mauldin. I don't think its enough to hold this article any longer though, but if you could "complete the set" as it were it would probably look better. Cheers for a good read, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)