Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1st Provisional Marine Brigade/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ucucha 01:41, 11 January 2012 [1].

1st Provisional Marine Brigade edit

1st Provisional Marine Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 04:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. It's a GA and a MILHIST A-class. Last FAC review got through most of the basics but ran out of time before it picked up enough supports. —Ed!(talk) 04:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no citations to Bickel 2001. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut Bickel from the list. —Ed!(talk) 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Looking good.
  • "substantially changed morale": I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The regiment ... landed at Pusan in South Korea on 3 August. It was put under command of Brigadier General Edward A. Craig as it sailed to Korea. Craig met the brigade in-country.": See WP:Checklist#chronology. At FAC, you need something like: ... Its recently appointed commander, Brigadier General Edward A. Craig, met the brigade in-country. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search for periods before double quotes, and per WP:LQ, if the period wasn't in the original, or if it was but the quoted string is so short that the period isn't relevant ("Task Force Kean."), move the period outside the quote marks.
  • "... forcing the diversion ... Task Force Kean, a force of about 20,000 men. The plan of attack required the force ...": Forcing followed by three forces is two too many. Search for "force" throughout and lose it where you don't need it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It surged forward to Pansong, inflicting another 350 casualties on the North Koreans. There, they overran the North Korean 6th Division's headquarters." When you've got two short sentences in the form: "At [city], this happened. There, that happened.", combine them to: "At [city], this and that happened.", assuming "this" came at the same time or shortly before "that". - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far so good on prose, per standard disclaimer, down a little more than halfway, to First Naktong Bulge. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing to the end. "the bulge salient": Doesn't "bulge" mean "salient"?
    • In this case I was referring to the Naktong Bulge, the geographic location. I've clarified this. —Ed!(talk) 12:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an estimated two North Korean regiments": Would "close to two full North Korean regiments" work? - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which then assumed their lineage": I don't know what this means.
  • "it was moved to the Marshall Islands for a planned invasion of Guam from the Empire of Japan": I don't think they were going to invade Guam from Japan.
  • I'll support when these last two are fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've responded to everything. Thanks once again for your thorough copy edit. —Ed!(talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I reviewed this article for GA status, and am pleased to see that it's since been further improved. However, I don't think that it's of FA class yet, and have the following comments: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-D (talk • contribs)
    • I still don't think that including the 49th (West Riding) Infantry Division's patch in the infobox is appropriate given that the brigade only briefly used it, and this wasn't even the version used.
      • Do you think one of the other images would better embody the unit in the infobox? I don't have a problem moving this insignia out of the box but it's the only one to ever represent the unit. —Ed!(talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The narrative of the brigade's engagements in Korea is still vastly more detailed than that of its actions on Guam (which also involved some tough fighting). Even allowing for the fact that the brigade saw about two months of fighting in Korea compared to about two weeks in Guam, this is rather unbalanced (for instance, the Korean War narrative is generally at battalion and even company level while the Guam narrative is at regimental level). I'd suggest trimming the material on Korea, as this feels over-long and is heavy going for readers.
      • I expanded the WWII info per your recommendation on the GA. Should I contract it all now? —Ed!(talk) 05:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'd suggest chopping back the material on Korea (and transferring it to the articles on the various battles if it isn't already there).
          • To be honest, I'd prefer to expand the Guam information, as I think coverage two levels down (Brigade -> Regiment -> Battalion) is comprehensive and necessary for a complete understanding of the unit. Would that work? —Ed!(talk) 14:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, that would be OK. This seems to be my only outstanding comment now :) Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Outstanding. I've added more detail into Guam about battalion level actions, trying not to add an inordinate amount of weight toward the Guam operation. —Ed!(talk) 14:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • That looks good, and I'm shifting to support. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be worth saying something about the Marines' doctrine of forming provisional brigades for one-off operations to provide additional context for this brigade's history.
    • Why is the full Korean War order of battle for the brigade provided in the 'Organization' section, while less detail is provided for other periods? I'm sure that Rottman provides a very detailed breakdown of the 1944 incarnation, and probably the 1941 one as well.
      • This information was lower in the article. I've moved it up from the history to the organization section. —Ed!(talk) 02:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There they relieved the British Army 49th (West Riding) Infantry Division of control of some areas of the country." - who controlled the rest of Iceland?
      • They only relieved the 49th Division of some areas, the division continued to control the rest. —Ed!(talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, it would be worth saying this.
    • Caporale 2003 is referenced four times, but what it is isn't included in the References section
      • Accidentally deleted it addressing above comment. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photo caption which reads "Lemuel C. Shepherd (left) oversees planning for the Guam operation with members of his senior staff" is a bit odd - this is obviously a posed photo, and not from any actual planning session. I'd suggest changing this to something like "Lemuel C. Shepherd (left) with members of his staff prior to the Guam operation".
    • "In July, it was moved to the Marshall Islands for an anticipated invasion of Guam, as Guam had been captured by the Empire of Japan." - this is awkwardly worded. The invasion was 'planed' not 'anticipated', and the reference to "as Guam had been captured by the Empire of Japan" is confusing given that the operation was being made to capture the island for use as a base and not to avenge the Japanese invasion of it way back in December 1941.
    • The chronology of the first two paragraphs in the 'Guam' section jumps around a lot and repeats itself. These paras should be re-worked.
      • Reworked the two graphs. —Ed!(talk) 04:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The most intense fighting struck the III Amphibious Corps to the north" - this makes it sound like the brigade wasn't part of III Corps
    • Did the 1st Brigade face 22,000 troops (as the article currently implies), or was this the force opposing the entire corps? Given that this number of Japanese troops would have greatly outnumbered the brigade, it doesn't gel with the statement that it only met "lighter resistance"
    • The 22nd Marines didn't operate any LVTs - these would have been attached from a specialist battalion
    • "Task Force Kean kicked off its attack on 7 August, moving out from Masan.[54] It surged forward to Pansong, inflicting another 350 casualties on the North Koreans as they overran the North Korean 6th Division's headquarters.[55] The rest of the Task Force however was slowed by North Korean resistance." - the second two sentences here are a bit unclear. Who were the 'they', and the second sentence seems to say that the entire task force made good progress against ineffective opposition while the third states that it advanced slowly due to resistance from the North Koreans.
    • What's meant by "inadvertently encountering the North Korean 83rd Motorized Regiment"? Was the brigade attempting to infiltrate through the North Korean lines without being detected?
      • No, but they hadn't intended to run right into a North Korean unit and did not know the regiment was there. —Ed!(talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "F4U Corsairs from the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing strafed the retreating column repeatedly" - it's not previously stated that the North Korean regiment was retreating
    • Appleman doesn't appear to support the statement that "Task Force Kean continued forward, supported by naval artillery" which is referenced to it - is this the right page number?
      • Removed that until I can find the right page number for it. —Ed!(talk) 05:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The North Korean attack caught the Americans, who were expecting an attack from further north, by surprise" - having ' who were expecting an attack from further north' in the middle of this sentence makes it a bit awkward
    • You use both "4th North Korean Division" and "NK 4th Division" - please standardise the terminology.
    • "Of its original 7,000 men, the regiment now had a strength of only 3,500, having suffered over 1,200 killed." - do you mean 'division' rather than 'regiment'?
    • "In total, American forces suffered around 1,800 casualties during the war, including about a third them killed." - I think you mean 'battle' rather than 'war'
    • What unit did 'E Company' form part of? (I presume it was E Company, 9th Infantry Regiment, but this is a bit unclear under the current wording)
    • "The American counteroffensive of 3–5 September west of Yongsan, according to prisoner statements, resulted in one of the bloodiest and most terrifying debacles of the war for a North Korean division." - I'm note sure that "prisoner statements" are a good source for this, given that these soldiers would have only have seen part of the war up to that point and obviously didn't see any of the rest of the war.
    • "The brigade completed its merging" - passive voice (change to something like "the brigade was merged")
    • The online version of Appleman p. 496 doesn't appear to say that the brigade was de-activated on 13 September as it cited to it.
      • Found an alternate source for the statement. —Ed!(talk) 05:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the relationship between this brigade and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade in the see also section?
      • It's likely readers will come here confusing this brigade with that one. The two have no relationship, so I don't think a seealso template is appropriate. I think this highlights that another 1st Marine Brigade does indeed have an article on Wikipedia. —Ed!(talk) 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it possible to add cited text to say that there's no relationship? Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Outpost in the North Atlantic: Marines in the Defense of Iceland is available online here, and so could be linked Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed most of the things you noted, and am ready to discuss the rest if necessary. Thanks for your review. —Ed!(talk) 05:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support My above comments have now been addressed. Great work with this Ed. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I will support you once these are addressed.
    • The brigade's best-known duty came in 1950 Can you source this please?
      • Cut it. It was kind of anecdotal. —Ed!(talk) 23:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was not an uncommon practice for the US Marine Corps, which created such ad hoc units regularly in wartime. You italicize ad hoc here but not in the lead.
    • Sometimes military police is capitalized, sometimes it isn't.
    • The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade surged forward to Pansong, inflicting another 350 casualties on the North Koreans It doesn't describe any casualties before this.
    • depended on the arrival of the entire U.S. 2nd Infantry Division, as well as three more battalions of American tanks. Where were these arriving from?
    • MacArthur responded by assigning the 17th Infantry Regiment, and the 65th Infantry Regiment to Walker's reserves Where were they coming from? Tango16 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. I've responded to everything. Thanks for your review. —Ed!(talk) 23:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm happy with the page now. Tango16 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a well-written piece with great sourcing. It could serve as a blueprint for how other articles are written about units within the USMC. Semper Fi!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: G'day, it generally looks fine to me, but I spotted a couple of minor prose issues:
    • sentence fragment/missing punctuation here: "After a series of unsuccessful counterattacks[78][85] The threat to Yongsan necessitated more..." (after "counterattacks" it seems like there should be a full stop because of the capital "T" in "The". That of course would create a sentence fragment, so it needs to be reworked slightly);
    • needs tweaking: "Permanent Marine brigades were established decades years later" (either "decades" or "years" would be fine, but not both together). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems to have been a disagreement between two other editors. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Fixed all captions to complete sentences. —Ed!(talk) 12:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Streamer_WWII_V.PNG: date? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It's Ordnance, not Ordinance. And it would be useful to link to a definition or an example of such.
  • Consider deleting USS from all mentions of ships. It's rather redundant given that you've specified that they were USN ships at least once.
  • Why does Pacific Theatre use British spelling?
  • Add |sp=us to your conversion templates to change them into American spellings of units.
  • Can we get a map of the Guam operation?
  • You sure that it was the 17th Infantry and not the 15th Infantry?
  • This could probably be rephrased: The brigade moved to Japan and merged with the 1st Marine Division[132] and was deactivated as an independent unit for the last time on 13 September 1950 I'd suggest breaking it in half.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1st_Provisional_Marine_Brigade/archive2&oldid=1136099232"