Talk:Fort Riley

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles

United States: Military history / Superfund Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Superfund (assessed as Low-importance).

Kansas High‑importance

	Kansas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floods

Some one might want to integrate information from this article Great Flood of 1951 and other floods into the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

The building in the photo captioned as the "former garrison and division HQ..." is still in use as the Garrison HQ. The new Division HQ opened in 2007 and the Garrison took over the entire building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.204.141.116 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the caption so it states that garrison still uses the building. Amducker (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes, so it is correct. St. Vicina (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Census designated places

It says the base includes two CDPs and immediately names four places. Wschart (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvements

The article appears to now have all the material referenced per Donner60's recommendations. I've also made a few other changes, such as improving and expanding the infobox. Hopefully it now meets B-class.

I'm hoping to also eventually bring up the article to GA-status soon, so any comments on how this might be done I would appreciate. I have been looking at the GA-class article "Loring Air Force Base" for guidance, as I cannot find any active US military bases with GA-class status. Some thoughts about possible improvements:

The vast majority of the information from the United States Cavalry School section is listed elsewhere and redundant. Integrate what isn't into the "History" section and then delete the section.
Create a section similar to the Loring AFB article's "Base culture and civilian life" section. It could cover several topics, including "Irwin Army Hospital" and "Fort Riley museums" sections. I would also like to elaborate on the general amenities and facilities available on the base, and provide a brief overview of the six functional areas, which include the Main Post, Camp Funston, Marshall Army Airfield (MAAF), Camp Whitside, Camp Forsyth, and Custer Hill.
Perhaps some image improvements, such as placement, adding some photos (I added File:Fort Riley Henry Gate 2019.webp to Commons, which I think would do well in the article), and better placement of the ones that are there (more alternating which side of page they are on).

This is my first GA-class article on any topic, and it may be the only GA-article for an active US military base, so any guidance or advice would be appreciated. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for larger coverage for request for comments. I think that a GA assessor would likely want the lead (introduction) to be 3 or 4 paragraphs pointing out some of the main (or more interesting) facts from the article.

I think your proposed changes and additions would be helpful as long as the article doesn't get too long. I have seen some assessors ask that one or more sections be split into articles if the sections get too long and are considered subsidiary to the main article. In that case, a paragraph or two summary and a further info tag may be called for. If there is already an article on the sub-topic, a summary in the main article should suffice. The length of articles and the need to split out long sections seem to get different opinions from assessors. I lean toward keeping all relevant information in a main article if possible but that can be inconsistent with the opinion of assessors who think an article has gottne too long to navigate or to read comfortably in a reasonably short period of time.

Photos can be a concern for some assessors. Some don't like galleries. Some assessors seem to look for a balance between the length of the article and the number of photos sufficient for illustration of some key facts. That's not very helpful, I am sure, but I have seen this both ways. See Persepolis for an article tagged for too many pictures. It is almost always something that can be easily worked out, however. Other than that, I It is a great article already. I don't think that much will be needed to get it to GA.

I reconned that you post a notice of your request for GA on the military history project talk page. GA assessments are done by anyone who picks a topic off the overall list. Mentioning this on the military history project talk page might make it more likely that the assessor will be a project member. Donner60 (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article sections are, frankly, a bit of a mess. The Custer section contains a great deal of information that should be located elsewhere since most of it doesn't deal with Custer at all. The following section (Buffalo Soldiers and the cavalry) is also a bit of a jumble. There are prose issues throughout the article as well. Intothat darkness 13:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Intothatdarkness: Thanks for the suggestions. I too feel like the sections could be better organized and more chronological, but I am struggling with specifically trying to figure out how to organize the "History" section. It feels like it is a mix of trying to be chronological as a whole, but also cluster the history of specific topics together as well, which can create confusion. Do you have any ideas on how to specifically improve the section heading and organization?

I don't really see the issues with the prose. Could you be more specific on what prose issues you have? Thanks. Wikipedialuva (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much every section has at least one grammar or sentence structure issue, so a close read for that would be required. It's not unusual to see with older articles that have had a number of "hands" working on them.

As far as structure, I'd stick with specific historical eras as opposed to personalities or the like. The Custer section, for example, could become Indian Wars or possible Post-Civil War. That would also eliminate the awkward Buffalo Solider section title. Those are just off the top of my head, of course. Intothat darkness 20:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]