Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/6th Machine Gun Battalion (United States Marine Corps)/archive1

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment‎ | 6th Machine Gun Battalion (United States Marine Corps)
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.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6th Machine Gun Battalion (United States Marine Corps)

edit
Nominator(s): Kb butler (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I believe it to be a well-written article. In addition very little, if any information, has been made available for this unit. The article serves the purpose of uniting this information into one place. Thank you. Kb butler (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: G'day, I will try to review the article shortly, but the first thing I notice is that this article is a near duplicate of 6th Machine Gun Battalion. That article should probably either be a dab, listing this unit and others with similar designations, or simply a redirect to this one. It appears to be a copy-paste move, rather than a technical move, so I wonder if we need an admin to do a history merge, or something similar. Sorry, I'm not quite up on the technical side of things. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to Milhist ACR: G'day, I'm not sure if you've been involved in a Milhist ACR before, but as I've not seen you here before please let me provide a general explanation about the ACR process (apologies if you are already aware of it). Essentially an ACR is designed to get an article ready to consider a FAC. It would usually be done after a successful GA nomination, but that is not a pre-requisite. To be successful here, an article will need at least three explicit supports without an explicit opposes. Currently we have a shortage of reviewers, so please consider doing a couple of A-class reviews on other articles that are listed here, while other people review your article (please note, though, that it is not a requirement, however, it can help free up other editors to focus on your article). Reviews are generally open for 28 days, although this is not a hard and fast rule. After this time, the review may be closed either as promoted or not promoted. If it is not promoted, a nominator is free to renominate at any time. If there are any questions about the process, please feel free to ask me or one of the Miltiary History project's co-ordinators. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Suggestions: I've taken a quick look at the article. I feel it needs a bit of work to bring it up to A-class standard, although it can probably be achieved. Mainly the article needs a copy edit, but I feel also that the coverage needs expanding. These are my suggestions:
    • "battalion" is overlinked in the lead. Currently you have three links to it in the lead, but one would be sufficient;
    • if possible please add links in the lead to "4th Marine Brigade", "5th Marine Regiment" and "6th Marine Regiment";
    • the lead probably needs to be expanded to summarise the unit's entire service history;
    • the current structure of the article probably should be adjusted slightly. I suggest making "World War I" and "After World War I" third level headings under the 2nd level heading of "History";
    • the heading "After World War I" would probably sound better as "Post World War I";
    • "Casualty Lists" should probably be "Casualty lists" (per WP:Section caps), although it might be even better as simply "Casualties";
    • in the infobox, instead of a hyphen between the active dates, it should probably be an endash per WP:DASH;
    • the ship name "USS DeKalb" should probably be presented as "USS DeKalb (in italics);
    • "USS DeKalb" is probably overlinked. I suggest linking only once, on first mention;
    • "St Nazaire" is probably overlinked (as above);
    • "Lewis Guns" is overlinked;
    • This is a little awkward: "The original battalion consisted of the Headquarters, 77th, and 81st companies with two more companies to be added at a later date". I suggest tweaking it to: "Upon formation, the battalion consisted of a headquarters and two companies, the 77th and 81st, although provision was made for two more companies to be added at a later date";
    • this is a little awkward: "From 27 August 1917 to 7 December 1917, the battalion went through extensive training to learn their weapons and doing various other drills including trench warfare, building pillboxes, firing discipline, and other training". I suggest tweaking to: "Between 27 August and 7 December 1917, the battalion undertook extensive training, which included individual weapon familiarisation, building pillboxes, fire discipline, trench warfare doctrine and other training.";
    • "On 14 December 1917, the battalion embarked on the USS DeKalb with the addition of the 12th and 20th companies and the Aviation Detachment to St. Nazaire, France.". I suggest rewording this to something like this: "On 14 December 1917, the battalion was brought up to establishment with the addition of the 12th and 20th companies, and along with the Aviation Detachment, they embarked upon the USS DeKalb for St. Nazaire, France."
    • in the World War I section, I suggest decapitalising the dates in the list of battles;
    • "The USS DeKalb arrived at St. Nazaire, France 28 December 1917". I think that there is a missing word here. Perhaps try: "The USS DeKalb arrived at St. Nazaire on 28 December 1917". I also suggest removing "France", as it has already been clarified where St Nazaire is in the previous paragraph;
    • missing possessive apostrophe here: "This was also the battalions baptism of fire and helped to bring them into the war". (should be "battalion's baptism");
    • in the World War I section there is a link that points back to the duplicate article "6th Machine Gun Battalion", which should probably be removed;
    • would it be possible to convert the list of battles that the unit participated in into a couple of paragraphs of prose. Currently, the reader probably doesn't really get a good understanding of how the battalion was employed. I assume that they were detached by companies (like the Australian machine gun battalions), but the article doesn't seem to say;
    • in the "World War I" section "5th Marine Regiment" is overlinked;
    • in the "After World War I" section, "New York" is overlinked;
    • "Marine Corps Base Quantico" is overlinked;
    • in the Casualty Lists section, this needs rewording: "These are the casualty lists (per battle) that the 6th Machine Gun Battalion suffered". The issue with this is that a "casualty list" can't be "suffered", but casualties can. As such, perhaps try: "The battalion suffered the following casualties, which are listed per per battle";
    • in terms of References, I wonder if it is possible to expand what you've got. Currently the article is referenced to just two works. That is of course fine if that is all that exists, but if there are more sources out there, it would be probably be necessary to add a few more sources so that the article can honestly represent the body of work on the subject. Have you searched for journal articles?;
    • in the References, "pp." should really only be used for page ranges; for single pages "p." is generally accepted;
    • for page ranges, instead of hyphens, endashes should probably be used;
    • did the unit receive any campaign streamers? If so, you might consider mentioning them. For instance, see the way 104th Infantry Division (United States) handles this as an example;
    • the image "File:6thmgbparade.jpg" probably needs a copyright tag added to it;
    • this is just a general comment, but it might pay for you to take a look at other military unit articles, such as those listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/History#War and military. These are all rated as GAs, which is slightly below A-class, but still a good gauge of the required standard;
    • I will leave my comments at this now to allow time for work to be done on the article. I will come back later and re-review. Please feel free to question anything you don't understand or don't agree with; however, I will be quite busy at work for the next five days or so, so I might not get back until Friday night (Central Australian time). Good work so far. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have corrected most of the things you have listed and are noted in the prior nomination link. Unfortunately, there isn't much information in regard to the 6th Machine Gun Battalion specifically. There is a lot about the 4th Marine Brigade and even the regiments but unfortunately, information is scarce in regard to the battalion. The book by Curtis is the definitive work and it was published in 1919 right after the war so it can be considered pretty accurate as seen from other derivitive works using it. I also decided to break down the battles into their own sections and give a brief blurb as to what the battalion did during the battle. I believe that is it. Thank you. Kb butler (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments: okay I've done a second review and made most of the edits that I would have suggested now. I believe it is almost up to A-class standard, although I might now be a tad close to the article to judge objectively. I have a couple of minor comments:
    • regarding the copyright tag for "File:6thmgbparade.jpg", I'm no image expert, but I think that {{PD-US-1923}} might be a more accurate licence;
    • "File:6th MG Bn Shoulder Patch.jpg": you probably need to explain why this image is not replaceable. Although I don't necessarily agree with the policy, these days it is very difficult to justify non-free media on Wikipedia and as such the image might be nominated for deletion by someone unless a good rationale can be written;
    • "File:77co6mgbbelleauwood.jpg", the licence for this appears okay to me, but it might be a good idea to add the url of the website that you got it from if it was obtained from a website. If it came from a book, then it would be good to list the details of that. These could just be inserted by embedding them in the Source field beside "United States Naval Institute";
    • regarding the reliance on two main sources, it is probably okay, although other editors might disagree. If possible, it would be great if you could maybe work in one or two more book references, even if they just served to confirm what is already there. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • this Google book search produced a few results, some of which might be useful. For example: To the limit of endurance: a battalion of Marines in the Great War by Peter F. Owen; Miracle at Belleau Wood: the birth of the modern U.S. Marine Corps by Alan Axelrod; Battle History of the United States Marine Corps, 1775-1945 by George B. Clark (p. 116 looks particularly promising). Some of these appear to be available on Google books, but if you can access them from your local library it might be the best solution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your time and effort on this article. I went ahead and used the Battle History of the United States Marine Corps, 1775-1945. It really was the only book that gave a little detail to the 6th MGB. Unfortunately, most other histories only mention it as being a part of the 4th Marine Brigade or mention it as a derivitive work of Curtis. As for the picture, thought I did include the website that it came from. Kb butler (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries. I've added my support for promotion to A-class. Hopefully a couple more editors will stop by soon and also review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you so much for your help. I really appeciate it and I've learned a lot for my first real article.Kb butler (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I think there's a bit of work to be done on the prose, but with that done it should meet the standard. Thoughts are listed below:
  • Lead:
  • "fire support role " in lead - worth linking, as it won't be a familiar term to some readers.
  • " in a fire support role along with the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments during World War I." -unclear if this is saying that it operating alongside the regiments, or if the regiments also had a fire support role.
  • " machine gun" - worth linking
  • History:
  • " Each company was issued..." Did this include the HQ company?
  • "33 carts apiece" - "33 carts each" might be clearer. Did this include horses as well?
  • "Aviation Detachment " -what's an aviation detachment?
  • "12th and 20th Companies" - did they have machine guns as well?
  • "Haute-Marne" etc. - worth linking
  • "and over the next nine months took part in a number of battles" - unclear if these are the ones you then describe, or different battles.
  • "deploy in support" - "deployed"
  • "This was the battalion's baptism of fire and helped to bring them into the war" - how did it help bring them into the war?
  • "in order to provide concentrated fire support along the Allied line." - presumably not all along the Allied line, as they were concentrated in a single unit. How about "at key points along the Allied line"?
  • "They also assisted the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments in their respective drives" - what were these respective drives?
  • " In recognition of their achievements during the fighting" - the "their" currently refers to the Germans in the previous sentence; worth clarifying.
  • "In addition, the legend of the marines getting their nickname "Devil Dog's" came about as a result of this battle." - unclear what this means. Is it saying that that they did get their names from the battle, or that the tale of them getting their nickname from the battle came out from the battle?
  • "the unit's logo" - do military units have logos? I'd have thought they had emblems or some term like that.
  • " were ordered in to reserve " - ? Ordered to join the reserve?
  • "the offensive they would be conducting" - what offensive is this?
  • "In August, the 6th Machine Gun Battalion companies were again parceled out" - they're still parcelled out from the last paragraph - were they reunited again first?
  • " consisted mainly of marches and deployments on the front lines" - I couldn't quite see how an operation could consist of marches (the language doesn't feel right) - was this a formal operation?
  • "During the fighting around Saint-Mihiel during September" - if you say "the fighting", it implies its been mentioned before (its the definitive); in this case, you'll want to say "During fighting..." as you haven't mentioned it before. There's repetition of "during" three times in the paragraph as well.
  • " as they made general advances along the entire front" - who's the "they" here?
  • " the 6th Machine Gun Battalion companies continued to hold the line " - which line?
  • There are a lot of short, one paragraph, two-sentence sections towards the end - I think this would read better if they were combined in some way. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for taking the time to review my article and thank you for all the helpful tips. The things I didn't or couldn't change are:
    • Nothing was mentioned about whether the 12th and 20th companies had machine guns or not. All it stated was they were attached to the 6th Machine Gun Battalion for the transit across the Atlantic. It probably could be deduced that they didn't have any machine guns and those were issued in country when they arrived.
    • About the marines getting their nickname "Devil Dogs". It is written exactly how it should read. The name came as a result of the battle and the link to "Devil Dogs" is provided.
      • Ah, I get it now. The problem is the term "the marines" - I thought that this referred to the marines in this unit, not the corps as a whole. You want to say something like "In addition, the legend of the U.S. Marine Corps acquiring their nickname "Devil Dog's" came about as a result of this battle." Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have changed marines to United States Marine Corps as per your suggestion.Kb butler (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • All other items corrected accordingly. Thank you again.Kb butler (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've done some work on US military units, hopefully I can provide some help.

  • The patch needs a little explaining in the infobox. It should be established that it was the shoulder sleeve insignia of the unit (since the US Marines no longer formally use them) and that it was designed with the 2nd Infantry Division's patch in mind.
  • Agree with the above on the "fire support role" in the lead; that term needs to be linked and elaborated upon.
  • "In addition to this role, the battalion was sometimes employed as a complete unit to ensure maximum firepower was applied to various points along the line in both offensive and defensive situations." -- this sentence is filled jargon to where I can't really understand it.
    • this was my fault, I think. I've had a go at rewording it, but to be honest I'm not really sure I know how to make it any clearer (but I'm probably tainted by my current posting where I do a lot of service writing). Do you think it is better now? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the size of the article, I personally think the lead needs to be expanded into a few paragraphs, as well.
    • Problem is, there isn't a whole lot of information in regard to the 6th MGB as a separate unit. Most literature (in regard to the Marines) deals with the 5th and 6th Marine Brigades.Kb butler (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Formation" section; where did the weapons training take place?
  • "This was the battalion's baptism of fire and helped to bring them into the war by enabling them to learn about how the war was fought on the Western Front." -- needs to be reworded. "Baptism of fire" is unencyclopedic, and I don't understand how they needed to be "brought into the war;" it sounds to me like they were already there.
    • I had a go at rewording this. I don't have access to the sources, though, so there is only a limit to what I can do. How does it read now? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three orders of battle in the article would be better suited for a table so they don't break up the prose as badly. I would suggest Template:Command structure.
    • I've seen that template and I think it would create more of an awkward read then the current bullet format. Also, considering we are talking about two battalions within the two Marine Brigades means about four boxes (at minimum) per section. In addition, the command structure of the 6th MGB as a whole. Kb butler (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Asine" section: "The fourragère thereafter became a part of the uniform of these units, and all members of the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments are now authorized to wear it while serving with those regiments." -- does this mean it can be worn by members of the unit to this day? If so, that should be clarified.
  • The "Aisne–Marne Offensive", "Marbache Sector" and "St. Mihiel Offensive" sections are too short to be independent sections. I understand why you organized them that way, but I think each should be expanded or merged into one section.
  • Be consistent with the capitalization of "Marine," it's inconsistent in the article.
  • The "Meuse River Campaign" section is also too short. In this case, I think it needs some expanding to explain what the parent units were doing during the battle.
    • Added a bit more about the drive to the river. Kb butler (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The casualty lists would be better repurposed in the individual sections where they belong, or else summarized in the prose. As-is, they're a little out of place.
    • I thought about this but I think it would look kind of funny to add at the end of each battle-section "KIA WIA MIA" versus just having a table at the end of the article. Kb butler (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all, the article has a little way to go. I look forward to seeing it improve, and then I'll happily support. —Ed!(talk) 00:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I'm satisfied with the way things look right now. —Ed!(talk) 02:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. In general, the prose is too wordy, and there isn't a quick fix for this, so don't consider this a support or an oppose, just advice. - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the battalion was sometimes employed as a complete unit with all its companies being concentrated together ...": How does concentrating its companies make it a complete unit? Would "the battalion's companies were sometimes concentrated together" work?
    • I'm guessing "complete unit" in so much that it could exercise operational (or at least tactical) command over its subunits, whereas when the companies were detached they probably would have been placed under the operational control (or at least tactical control) of the unit they were supporting, allowing the supported unit to gain the benefits of using the effect of the assigned unit without reference to a higher commander. That's just my interpretation, though. It's been a while since RMC and ops planning is no longer my area of military expertise, so maybe someone will correct me.(PS, I don't know if these terms were used then). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these additions meant that it was designated as a Provisions Battalion.": Can you rephrase without "meant"? I'm not sure what this means.
    • I tweaked it, but I am not exactly sure what it means. I believe that it was a divisional supply/support function, but I'm not really sure and my limited research isn't adding to my understanding. Kb, can you help with this one? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to the literature and how units were transferred into combat zones, the companies were combined with other companies headed to France to either reinforce or to create new units. It was named a Provisions Battalion so that on paper, they were a "complete" unit for purposes of transport to France.Kb butler (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Kb, that makes it a little clearer in my mind. I think in the British Commonwealth, we'd call these "holding battalions". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, there are too many long words (subsequently, undergo/underwent, undertake), long phrases and long sentences where short ones will do. I'll leave the prose alone for now, but please aim for simpler and more concise language in future articles. This article will need some work if it's headed to FAC. For instance, see what you can do with this: "the battalion underwent a period of intense training designed to get the men ready for battle. Once completed, the battalion was committed to the fighting against the Germans and over the next nine months until the war came to an end, [it fought in all the US battles for the rest of the war]". - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a go at it. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Rupert, much better. - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cheers. I fear that the wordiness in this article crept in with my earlier copy edit. I've found recently I've been quite wordy in all areas of my writing (I got beasted by a colonel about this issue the other day at work, so it seems to be a common fault...) AustralianRupert (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hm, I generally like your style Rupert, I'll have another look at it in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • There isn't anything left that I feel comfortable cutting out, knowing as little as I do about WWI Marine battalions. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, I see you just got started in February .,. nevermind about FAC. Are there any writing guides you like? If not, I'll see if I can suggest something cheap that gives suggestions on concise writing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action required).
    • External links all check out [2] (no action required).
    • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • The images used are all PD or licenced and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
    • "The time spent at the camp was used to prepare ammunition and supply dumps, conduct a reconnaissance of the area, and set up firing positions for the upcoming offensive." What offensive? (it is not immediately clear from the paragraph IMO).
    • Is there any information available about the units commanding officers? Perhaps a list might be included (as a suggestion see 2nd Battalion (Australia) as an example of how this might be done). Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, I managed to find some information on this, so I have added it to the article for the nominator. Have all your concerns been met? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks mate. All my concerns have been deal with so I have added my support. Anotherclown (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2012 (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/6th_Machine_Gun_Battalion_(United_States_Marine_Corps)/archive1&oldid=1138361142"