Jump to content

Talk:45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2009Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'll be doing this review. Sasata (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's my first set of comments. I'll let you respond to these suggestions, and then read the article through a second time, checking references. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Recently, though, the brigade has seen deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan in support of the War on Terrorism." Avoid the use of "recently"; "has seen deployments to" -> has been deployed to
  • "The brigade is a subordinate unit..." suggest linking brigade
  • ...it can take command of additional battalions when needed for operations when deployed." recast to remove repetitive "when"
  • "Organized and federally recognized on August 3, 1923 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma." Not a complete sentence. And what's the implication of "federally recognized"?
  • "Instead, the brigade was used for training of active duty units, " Passive voice... how about just "was used to train"?
  • "In 1994, the brigade was selected as one of fifteen "enhanced" separate brigades of the Army National Guard," This is the first instance of the phrase "Army National Guard" (not the more specific Oklahoma Army National Guard) and so maybe should be linked for the benefit of those who don't know what a National Guard is.
  • "In 2000-2001 several hundred soldiers..." ndashes for number ranges. Same thing for the year ranges in the "Honors" section
I switched them from m to endashes.
  • "Soldiers of the brigade were among the first national guard units to see front-line patrolling duty in the theater," In the theatre? Is this military jargon, as in "theatre of combat"?
  • "...a job held exclusively by active duty units until that point." ->"until that time"
  • "The brigade trained for a rotation in the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana throughout 2000 and 2001, seeing its deployment to the center throughout 2002 and early 2003." Am not fond of the construction "seeing the deployment"
  • "The purpose of the soldier's deployment was to assist in the training of Afghan secutity forces." passive voice, try -> "to assist in training Afghan"
  • Could you maybe put down a few words to explain what a "campaign streamer" is. Also, in the first table, some of the streamers are listed "with Arrowhead", and I have no clue what this means.
  • what does Semper Anticus on the insignia mean? When did they adopt this motto?
  • What (if any) relationship does this brigade have with the 44th and 46th brigades? Do numbers close in sequence imply geographical closeness?
    • No, there is no relationship with units of close numbers. Most of the numbers are traced back to World War I, and the number was simply the order that the divisions were formed. -Ed!(talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • The lead is very thin... how about adding a couple more sentences about history and mention the honors?
  • I think the article would benefit from a few words about the symbolism of the shoulder unit insignia, available in ref#1. Also, a source is needed for the actual translation of Semper Anticus into English.

Now placing the article on hold. Sasata (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
Prose is slightly choppy, but serviceable. Article largely complies with MOS, suggest expanding the lede.
Expanded the Lead. -Ed!(talk) 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
    Adequately referenced to reliable sources; a ref for Latin translation requested.
    Ref changed to one that explains the translation. -Ed!(talk) 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Suggest to add a bit more detail about the insignia; I think mil-hist buffs might like to know this kind of detail.
    Done. -Ed!(talk) 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Both images have appropriate free use licenses.
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
On hold pending improvements.

Article meets GA requirements, so am promoting. Congratulations! Sasata (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content Question

[edit]

RTO Trainer (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Is there a source for standard practices? Perhaps heraldry info should be added to them.[reply]

Generally people on Wikipedia frown on that because it's generally considered trivial information. I have thought it would go well on Brigade Insignia of the United States Army, and make that page more useful. But it's a lot of work and I haven't been involved in that yet. —Ed!(talk) 14:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this is an indication of a civil-military divide. We don't see our heraldic devices and their background as trivial. Ah, well. RTO Trainer (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very frustrating that nonmilitary types don't share the same values. Believe me, I haven't been a fan of it either, especially given the tendency to also regard soldiers' military decorations as trivial, too. But, it's a discussion that could be opened on the military history project page. —Ed!(talk) 01:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina

[edit]

no mention of the unit dishonoring itself by violating the constition and there oath, by kicking in doors during katrina.[1]Brian in denver (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube isn't a reliable source. You'll need something more reputable. —Ed!(talk) 20:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, actuall news reports, and eye witness statments, are false because there posted to youtube. Brian in denver (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll want to read WP:HQRS for Wikipedia's policy on what constitutes a reliable source. The video's references are links to sites run by Alex Jones, who has a rather poor reputation for producing the kind of unbiased, reliable, well-researched references Wikipedia requires. Now, if you can find a reliable book or a reputable news outlet as a source to back up these ideas, that might be a different thing. Otherwise the allegations you're noting run afoul of WP:FRINGE. —Ed!(talk) 18:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so truth is not truth if certain people state it. the violation of the 4th amendment by the leos and gardsmen is well documented. including post katrina cort cases brought by the NRA. why deny it? verbal orders are impossible to verify unless cought on tape. and eye wittness testemony always boiles down to- he said she said. thats how cockroaches operate in the dark. funny you dont see unit members denying the acusation! Brian in denver (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the detail is, it needs to be reliably sourced. He said/she said hearsay is exactly why WP:V exists. It makes all of the difference who's saying it, too. In Wikipedia's eyes, any allegation needs to be backed up by neutral, independent, secondary sources. In this case, the only references to back up these allegations come from someone with a self-expressed non-neutral point of view. There is thorough coverage of Hurricane Katrina done by a wide variety of impartial historians, journalists, and other reputable sources. Any kind of controversial material such as this needs impartial, reliable sourcing to be included, it's one of Wikipedia's basic tenants. —Ed!(talk) 20:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:45th_Infantry_Brigade_Combat_Team_(United_States)&oldid=1197046141"