Wikipedia:Featured article review/3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC) [1].

3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines[edit]

Notified: Palm dogg, Looper5920, WP MILHIST, WP US, WP Vietnam, talk page notice 2022-02-18

Review section[edit]

This 2007 promotion and has not been maintained to standard, and there has been no improvement since the February 2022 talk page notice. There is considerable uncited text, indications throughout that the text is dated and has not been maintained current, there is practically no lead (here is the lead of the version that passed FAC in 2007), there is listy prose with excess detail, there are image layout problems, and heavy reliance on press releases for sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First things first, I had to add a lot of that text between 2007 and 2010 to get it on the main page in December 2010. The last time I remember doing any real work on this was June 2013. If we can agree that this version, or any past the Main Page appearance is FA-worthy, I will do a clean-up. Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think cleanup will suffice; that's almost ten years ... what about new developments? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are suggesting an almost-ten-year revert, are you planning to go section-by-section to work back in the good edits made since then? (The lead in the 2013 version needs better paragraphing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Section-by-Section; I'll try and integrate as much of the new edits as possible, but only if they contribute to the overall quality. I'll try and get the intro knocked out today or tomorrow because it looks the easiest. (i.e. all somebody did was dump it under "Origin") and we can take it section by section. It looks like the easy part is cleaning up the images and extra text that got dumped there, as well as updating a bunch of the links. If you've got a suggestion for breaking up the paragraphs, or anything more substantial, I'm all ears. I'd say use the June 2013 version as a starting point for any more substantial critiques. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stand aside then and wait for you to indicate you are ready for a new review. You know the topic; proceed as you think best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D From a quick read:

The 'organization' section seems out of place right at the start of the article, given that it really covers the current organisation. It probably needs to be updated given the USMC has been adjusting its structure recently.
" the 3rd Marine Division was relieved by the Army's Americal Division and 3rd Battalion left Bougainville for Guadalcanal on Christmas Day, 1943 with the rest of the division" - a bit clunky
Not enough context is provided for most of the events in the battalion's history (e.g. why it was raised and re-raised, why it was deployed to lots of places, etc).
For instance, the 'Bougainville' section needs to provide more background on the two operations the battalion was involved in.
Similarly "Operation Desert Storm began on 17 January 1991, but for the first two weeks 3rd Battalion only conducted sporadic engagements with its Iraqi counterparts across the border" would make no sense to people unfamiliar with this war.
"653 marines who served in 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines lost their lives during the Vietnam War or were killed while operating with other units" - this is a bit confusing: does it include members of the battalion who were killed after they left the battalion, or Marines who were attached to other units but technically remained part of the battalion at their time of death? (likely the latter)
"During this time the battalion lost two Marines, James Cunningham and Anthony Stewart" - unclear why they need to be named?
The 'Post Cold-War (1991–2004)' section includes lots of unreferenced material
The coverage of the battalion's operations in Iraq and Afghanistan seems too detailed
Some paragraphs are much too long
"En route back to the United States one of the companies was detained in Mumbai, India for two days" - unclear, and the reference appears to be someone's blog
"With the exception of Weapons Co. who was deployed back to Fallujah under 1st Battalion 7th Marines. To assist in combat operations, and turn over to Iraq authority." - seems random
The 'Notable former members' containing only a single person (with no reference) is sloppy and odd.
The article is a fairly bland history of the battalion's organisational arrangements and deployments. There's not much 'colour' about the experiences of its members, and nor is the way its composition changed over time noted (e.g. the integration of African Americans and women into the unit goes unremarked).
The sourcing seems excessively reliant on USMC works. I'm surprised that Gordon Rottman's work on the USMC's orders of battle in World War II hasn't been consulted, for instance.
There's some inconsistency with how the unit is referred to across the article: the full name is used at times, as is '3rd Battalion' and '3/3'. '3rd Battalion' is likely the best option in most cases, given the article is explicitly about the unit. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palm dogg is still making active improvements (pls ping when ready for a new look and when Nick-D's issues have been addressed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Step one is a clean-up, which is going easier than I expected. Sounds like the more modern stuff is where the problems are. Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: there isn't enough context for the unit's activities or insights into the experiences of its members across the article. The sourcing is also not at the standards expected of a modern FA. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palm dogg this doesn't seem to be progressing adequately. There are still dead links, non-reliable sources, the issues raised by Nick-D, and a real mess of too many images and faulty image layout, including MOS:SANDWICH and MOS:ACCIM. And the editing pace isn't keeping up. A move to FARC, to keep this on track, might be the best next step. Improvements can continue while an article is in the FARC phase. What are your thoughts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's do that. Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, structure, and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palm dogg, progress has stalled, and it appears we may need to proceed to Delist; any thoughts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palm dogg hasn't edited since 2 September; Nick-D have your concerns been satisfied, or are we in delist territory? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid I'm currently a delist here. The article would need a fair bit of work to reach modern FA standards. Nick-D (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Nick-D then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Improvements have stalled, and I trust Nick-D's judgement. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.