Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/13th Airborne Division (United States)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

13th Airborne Division (United States)[edit]

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to get this to FA-Class, and after having made a fair few copy-edits to the article I think it's ready for A-Class at least. Skinny87 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - references mostly satisfy MoS.
    • Use "p." for one page, and "pp." for more than one page...(e.g. p. 196 / pp. 196–197)...don't mix the two. :)
    • Page ranges need an endash...(e.g. pp. 196–197)
    • Personal preference for me (don't change it if you don't want/it won't affect my vote) - see User:the_ed17/Rename Notes.
    • Just a couple easy fixes; otherwise, great work! As soon as these are fixed, I'll support. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, sorry, I'm feeling kinda thick at the moment. I'll do the dashes (hopefully I'll get them right), but I don't understand the first comment. I think all of the references use either p. for one page or pp. for two. Could you give an example so I know what I'm looking for? Skinny87 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, done the dashes and the Notes thingie. Just not sure about that first point. Skinny87 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endashes are entered like this (look at the edit window): – . (Don't forget the semi-colon =]) I fixed them though. :)
There was only one footnote that had the "p" vs. "pp" problem...I could have fixed it before, but I just wanted tro make sure that you knew that you had to keep it consistent for any other articles that you take to FAC...(Imagine going through something like Roman Catholic Church for a small and minor problem in even half the references... =/) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • The first sentence in the "Formation" section, repeats "activated" in the same sentence. Unfortunately, my mind isn't working right now, and can't think of a suitable word with which to replace the first one (I think the second "activated" is more appropriate to the context).
Done, replaced with 'formed'
    • Also in that paragraph, I think there's a problem with ranks. You've got Chapman as an MG while in command of the 13th, but an LTG (one pay-grade higher than MG) before, while in command of the 88th. Battalions are normally commanded by Lieutenant Colonels; is that perhaps what you meant?
Ah yes, that's it. Thanks for catching that.
    • This is sort of an off topic thought: have you thought about creating an "WWII Airborne Navbox" template that could go on the bottom of the article? It seems to me that the generic "US Army" box isn't all that relevant to this article, and a template that has links to all of the Airborne units (either US only, or other Allied units as well) and the operations the units took part in during the war. Just a thought :)
I like that idea, but I wouldn't have a clue how to create one. Have you ever made one before, or know where I could look to make one. I like that idea.
Here's Template:WW2AirDefenceUK, a template I found in Category:World War II navigational boxes that might be a good frame to start your own. You could even add in the equipment used, like the Horsa gliders, C-47s, etc. as the AirDefenceUK template has. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As The Ed17 said above, just a couple of really minor things, otherwise, the article looks pretty good. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything done, Parsecboy! Skinny87 (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with Comment - excellent article that looks nearly ready for an FA Drive (although it could use a copyedit to refresh some areas of the prose). My only real suggestion content-wise is to possibly expand on what happened between may and august of 1945. The division obviously didn't just sit there twiddling its thumbs for nearly four months, so I'm sort of wondering what it did partake in (perhaps occupation duties or prisoner processing or reconstruction or something). All the best, Cam (Chat) 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take it though a nice copy-edit to get rid of any less than fantastic prose, and I take your point about the period May to August. I've found a copy of the division's own history on Google Books; unfortunately, it doesn't have page numbers and it's a poor copy that hurts my eyes looking at it. Skinny87 (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good news, everybody!</Farnsworth> The US Army Historical Website says the 13th moved to Oise, France in April 1945 for 'supply and administration tasks', which is a bit vague, but it's something, so it's now in the article. Skinny87 (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/13th_Airborne_Division_(United_States)&oldid=1078788057"