Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Robert L. Eichelberger

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Robert L. Eichelberger edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Since I've nominated Krueger, might as well have the other army commander in SWPA, Robert L. Eichelberger. For some reason he has attracted more attention than Krueger. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action required).
    • External links all check out [2] (no action required).
    • Some images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only).
    • Reflinks tool check all ok [4] (no action required).
    • The Earwig Tool shows no violations [5] (no action required).
will be back later with more. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images are all public domain and seem appropriate to the article.
Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest explaining that Phi Gamma Delta is a fraternity when it is introduced.
    • Done. Added a link to "fraternity" as well, for people from outside the United States. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's unclear what power Warnock had to appoint him to West Point. Can you clarify this in the text?
    • Changed it to "In 1904, he persuaded his father's former law partner, William R. Warnock, now the representative for Ohio's 8th congressional district, to appoint him to the United States Military Academy at West Point." According to the West Point article: The majority of candidates receive their nomination from their United States Representative or Senator. Some receive a nomination from the Vice-President of the United States. The nomination process is not political, and applicants do not have to know their congressman to be nominated. It certainly helps though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest all regiments be rendered as "25th Infantry Regiment" when introduced rather than "25th Infantry" for clarity.
  • suggest you introduce "Em" as the familiar when you introduce his wife.
    • Done.
  • the two Siberia photos sandwich the text on my screen, can you re-arrange them to avoid this?
    • Moved one pic down. It will depend on your screen layout though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Done to the start of the WWII section. I'll be back tomorrow. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't find a wikilink to Lieutenant general (United States) prior to E's promotion to that rank (which is not itself linked). Suggest you link it at that point.
  • Can I suggest the article jumps very suddenly from E's arrival in Australia to the Battle of Buna-Gona? Begs the questions when and how his Corps arrived in New Guinea, what if anything they did before Buna-Gona etc. Worth a paragraph I think.
    • It says pretty much everything about that period ie that he was involved with training and working with the Australians. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quite IMO. My point is that the paragraph that begins "Eichelberger departed for Australia..." is focused on what happened in Australia. Suddenly in the next para, the 32nd Division is having a seriously poor innings at Buna-Gona. How did they get there? What involvement did E have in them getting sent there? Was it a divisional op with no input from E? (unlikely I would think, given they were in his Corps). As someone fresh to this article, but reasonably familiar with at least the Australian involvement at Buna-Gona, I would have thought there would be some mention of how the 32nd got there in the first place, ie MacArthur's decision to send them despite their time in training, the month-long march to get there, that a portion of the division had crossed the Owen Stanley's etc. I don't want to be too hard on our allies, but this was a big call for a green division and Harding seems to have got a raw deal given he was just a divisional commander. The casualties, even among the experienced Australians that got the job done at Gona in the end, were horrendous by SWPA standards. I think it's worth fleshing it out a bit.
        • I've added a sentence about his part. It was a divisional op of course; there was no intention of employing the corps as a formation. So E's part ended with nominating the 32nd, and resumed when he was sent to take over at Buna. This was quite extraordinary, sending a corps commander when only part of a division was in action. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same same after Sanananda, how did the Corps/Corps HQ get back to Australia, to where, when did he acquire the 24th Div (and where did they come from) etc.
  • I assume that Op Reckless involved the same divisions as the cancelled landing at Hansa Bay? Worth clarifying in the text.
  • IMO there is an errant comma after "achieved" in this sentence "The operation went well, mainly because surprise was achieved, and few Japanese were present in the area".
  • it's a bit unclear what went on between the end of Op Reckless and The Battle of Biak and how one of E's divisions got committed there. Was it a divisional level op? Maybe put something in to clarify.
    • Divisional op. The two operations ran at the same time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 8 May 1945, the Eighth Army (had?) killed over 24,000 more"
  • His wife reverts to Emma in the "Retirement and death" section, probably unnecessarily.
  • That's me pretty much done. I'll have another look over it once you've had a chance to look at the comments above. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one comment that I believe needs a further look. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy with the responses, I've noted my support. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, leaning Support
    • Performed my usual copyedit, so pls check I haven't inadvertently altered meaning.
    • Referencing generally looks good but it seems to me that there are more awards listed in the infobox than are mentioned and cited in the main body. For instance he's supposed to have 4 Army DFMs and a Navy DFM but I can only see 1 Army DFM mentioned/cited in the body. Can you pls double-check all the awards and make sure that they're mentioned/cited in the main body or, if not, that they're cited in the infobox?
      • Done. I don't want to insert a medal bar, though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank heavens for small mercies... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from that, prose, structure, detail and supporting materials seem fine -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • Is this right: "Eichelberger was sent to West Point as an adjutant"? Should it be "the' adjutant", in my experience units only have one, not sure about West Point though.
      • Me neither, and it took some looking up. You're right though; corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a word missing here: "where he lived with his Em for the rest of his life..."? Perhaps "where he lived with his wife Em for the rest of his life"? (suggestion only)
    • Inconsistency here: "South West Pacific Area" and "Southwest Pacific Area".
    • Otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • What evidence is there that File:Portrait of Eichelberger, other uniformed men in background.jpg was published before 1923? It says that "Robert L. Eichelberger Papers, 1728-1998 (bulk 1942-1949)", which suggests it could have been among the unpublished (until ~1998) photographs of Eichelberger.
    • I did not add this one to the article. AFAIK, it has never been published. Duke putting it up on the web does not constitute publication. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:American troops in Vladivostok 1918 HD-SN-99-02013.JPEG except that one might be a US government work. Also I'm not sure on the country of origin - given it is/was in NARA then I think the US is correct, but that being the case would add credence to the US-government part.
    • Taken in Vladivostok, Russia. US government work in NARA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Blamey and Eichelberger.jpg, PD-1996 needed (although that is fine).
  • File:Robert Eichelberger (3).jpg could preferably do with an expansion of what "SC 262016" means - the other images mention an armed service, at least, that sort of thing about how this photograph is one of the US military.
    • SC stands for "Signal Corps". SC 262016 is the serial number, which would be useful to someone looking for the original in the archives. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:12, 30 October 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/Robert_L._Eichelberger&oldid=1075714211"