Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/7th Infantry Division (United States)/archive2

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 SandyGeorgia 00:34, 12 December 2009 [1].

---

7th Infantry Division (United States)

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/7th Infantry Division (United States)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/7th Infantry Division (United States)/archive2

A-class Military History Article. Was not promoted on its last FA review because of a lack of feedback from any users. —Ed!^(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Some minor stuff.

• The second link in External links merely shows a Indian Head test card and nothing else—it might be dead. Otherwise, no dab links or dead external links.
• All images have alt text where needed.

--an odd name 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. The dead link has been removed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment (2c will follow later) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1a:

Unless "inactivated" is an essential US Armed forces jargon term, its far too en_US specific for a general encyclopedia; try made inactive, deactivated, listed as inactive status? ("In 1993 the division was slated be inactivated as part of the post-Cold War drawdown of the US Army.) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced "inactivation" with "deactivation" in all the places I found it. —Ed!^(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

2c fiddle to fix at Talk: 01:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think File:7InfDivRightDUI.gif should in SVG format. Try requesting at WP:GL. Connormah (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A request has been made. —Ed!^(talk) 17:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The image is now in SVG format. —Ed!^(talk) 02:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 36 (Allen, Thomas B....) needs a page number, its 351 pages.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Added page number. —Ed!^(talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Support

• I've made a few copyedit tweaks, nothing major.
• World War I section, "the Allies signed an Armistice ending hostilities." Should Armistice be lower case?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• World War I section, "the 7th Division was inactivated.", per the discussion above.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• World War II section, "Most of the soldiers in the division were selective service soldiers,". "Soldiers" twice in the same clause, could this be reworded?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• World War II section, "the division formally redesignated as the 7th Motorized Division." Should this be "was formally redesignated"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Eastern Mandates section, "4th Marine Division forces stuck the outlying islands". Should this be "struck"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Occupation of Japan section, "Seven thousand, five hundred members of the unit returned to the United States,". How many did this leave there? Or was this all of the soldiers? I guess I'm not really sure why the exact number of soldiers returning is spelled out...
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cold War section, "The 14th Infantry Brigade reactivated". Again, should this be "was reactivated"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cold War section, "and inactivated at Fort Lewis, Washington." A "was" should be included, and "inactivated" per above discussion.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cold War section, "On October 1, 1985 the division redesignated". Should be "was redesignated". For all of these, the division (as a concept) cannot redesignate or reactivate itself, and so it must be redesignated by people, hence "was".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cold War section, "By 1994, the garrison closed the division subsequently relocated". What?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• A division in name only section, "organization of Active duty,". Should "Active" be lower case?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a nice article, I look forward to supporting in time. Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

All of my comments have been addressed, so I've changed my comments to a support. Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Check the ISBN for 'McKenney, Janice (1997). Reflagging the Army. Center for Military History. ISBN ASIN B0006QRJPC.' - doesn't seem to be working. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The book is out of print, but I found its ASIN from Amazon.com here...it's the only ISBN code that I have. Is there some other number for the book that I should use? —Ed!^(talk) 00:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps instead of ASINs (which I believe are just Amazon's internal code for the books) for the books that don't have ISBNs you could use OCLC numbers? These are available through Worldcat and have their own field under the cite book template (oclc=). Just a suggestion. Dana boomer (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
      • All right. I have replaced the ASIN number on the book with an OCLC number. —Ed!^(talk) 20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me now. Comments Great article, BTW. I believe I reviewed one of your earlier FACs (Ah yes, 24th Infantry Division (United States)) and was equally impressed then. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• "On October 11, 1918 the 7th Division first came under shelling attacks." needs a cite. I see that it's ref'd by the next sentence's ref, but since there's a period I would throw the extra reference in.

• Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• "A division in name only" seems like a misleading title for the final section, as it did come back as an actual division. Perhaps "Reactivation and deactivation"?

• Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unless they're covered by a general reference I"m not seeing (in which case it should get listed as a general ref) a lot of the people in the "Legacy" section need referencing.

• I've added sources to the people in that section. —Ed!^(talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick responses! Last thing, Fred Bass still needs a cite here.

• I've been looking for a cite for him, I can't find one. Since it isn't that important to the article, I just removed his name. I suppose it can be added later, when his article is improved with better sources. —Ed!^(talk) 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

- Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment refs look OK. • Ling.Nut 07:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose until the prose is signficantly improved. An independent copy-edit is required. Here are samples at the top.

• Opening para very stubby. Could you tell us when it was established at the end of the para, having referred to "its history"?
• "Activated for service in World War I, the division saw brief service in the conflict, but never fought as an entire division." "Service" appears twice.
• "It is best known for its exploits during World War II, fighting in the Pacific Theater against Japanese forces in the Aleutian Islands, Leyte, and Okinawa, suffering heavy casualties." My US dictionary says "best-known". "Exploits" could be replaced by a more dignified word. Too much "ing" (three instances). Did they suffer heavy casualties in all locations? If so, this might be better: "It is best-known for its participation in the Pacific Theater during World War II, in which it suffered heavy casualties—against Japanese forces in the Aleutian Islands, Leyte, and Okinawa." Did I get it right? (Unsure)
• Is "deploy" transitive? I'd have thought "to be deployed".
• "The 7th would later go on to fight in such engagements as ...". "Later" is redundant, and the conditional future is a little awkward here, perhaps. "The 7th went on to fight in such engagements as ..."?
• "After Korea, the division was returned to the United States and later saw action in Operation Just Cause, Operation Golden Pheasant, and Operation Green Sweep,..." What, these were battles within the US? No.
• "... as well as" onwards in the lead is good.

See User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Academy/Copy-editing_essentials. Tony (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• What is gained by closing this? Ed was clearly responding to the comments people made. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Once again, the FAC has been closed before I even had the chance to respond to criticisms, because the latest user waited until the last possible minute to express his concerns. —Ed!^(talk) 06:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.