Template:Did you know nominations/Division slice

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Division slice

(

)

... that in 1977 the division slice of each US Army mechanized division was 48,000 men compared to 17,000 in the Soviet Army? "Thus, the "division slice" -the division, itself plus a proportional share of nondivisional troops and administrative overheads-is 17,000 for Soviet mechanized divisions vis-à-vis 48,000 or more for a comparable U.S. divisions" from: Norton, Augustus R. (1977). "NATO and Metaphors: The Nuclear Threshold". Naval War College Review. 30 (2): 67. ISSN 0028-1484.
- ALT1:... that the Soviet Army had a smaller division slice, the number of military personnel per division, than the US Army partly because it used civilian labourers and anti-aircraft gunners? "The Russians reduce their division slice by ... greater use of civilian labour, antiaircraft artillery manned by civilians or soldiers on a part-time basis" from: Hearings Before Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives on Sundry Legislation Affecting the Naval and Military Establishments, 1950: Eighty-first Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1951. p. 99.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2002 Football League First Division play-off Final

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 15:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
Other problems: - ALT1 has a problem, this is cited to one 1950 source. Although it may be true throughout the existence of the Soviet Army, it would need either a better source or else specification of time period. ALT0 appears to be correct, but is not very interesting.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: PS I added backlinks to this, the only article that mentions it appears to be American logistics in the Normandy campaign. (t · c) buidhe 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe, I agree. How about the following - Dumelow (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

- ALT2:... that the Soviet Army of the early Cold War had a smaller number of military personnel per division, than the US Army partly because it used civilian labourers and anti-aircraft gunners?
- ALT3:... that the Cold War Soviet Army, expecting a short and violent World War III, had fewer military personnel per division than the US Army?
  - ALT2 approved, for ALT3 the article does not use the term "World War III" so that would need to be supported. (It is not synonymous with a conflict between Soviet Union and NATO) (t · c) buidhe 04:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe, I've struck ALT3 - I was trying to find a succinct way of "potential war with NATO" but you're right, it isn't the same thing. Happy for ALT2 to run - Dumelow (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ALT2 only (t · c) buidhe 06:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)