Talk:104th Infantry Division (United States)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Good Article Review
I have reviewed this good article nomination and have decided that it does not meet the good article criteria.
 * For the sake of the next reviewer, I will respond to each of these issues. Please conduct the GA review in the link above, instead of directly on this talk page. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Written
 * The article is generally well written though in parts it can be fairly dense, especially in the History -> World War II -> Europe section and the Training Division sections. Personally I feel that the Europe section could be further broken down into headings of operations, but even if you disagree with this (and I am not averse to that) I feel that it is imperitive that some reference is made in the text which links these actions with the operations and battles under which they were fought.  While the infobox makes reference to the Battle of the Bulge, for example, the text does not.
 * A minor issue and easy to fix. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The winning of Medals of Honour should be discussed in the main text on the history of the unit. Which of the actions that are described in the article were the MoHs won in?
 * On the topic of Medals of Honour, the discussion around the 104th's two winners is confused. It is stated that "Willy F. James, Jr. is the only soldier from the division to receive the Medal of Honor for service with the division. Cecil H. Bolton also received the Medal of Honor after the war".  According to the Wikipedia page for Lt. Bolton, he did receive his MoH for service with the division, meaning that Willy F James Jnr was not the only soldier from the division to win that award.  Of course, the Bolton wiki page may be wrong, but one of these two articles needs to be edited to correct the contradiction between them.  Additionally, it makes no sense to make an issue of the fact that Bolton's medal was awarded after the war (1945) - so was that of James (1997).
 * Per a precedent set by dozens of GA and A-class articles of this type, the notable individuals belong in the "Legacy" section because the feats of individual soldiers are not directly relavent to the history of a division of 15,000 and therefore are only mentioned in a dedicated section. As for the issue of wording, that is very minor and has been easily ammended. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In a similar vein, it would be good to see the German PoW count discussed in the main article rather than being out in its own section. Over 50,000 Germans captured is a lot - where did this happen?  Were they mostly taken in one go, e.g. in the Ruhr or the Harz Mountains, or were they taken piecemeal throughout division's time in Europe?
 * Per the reference, the division did not keep a running tally during the war itself, and a large majority of said prisoners surrendered by default following the end of the war. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article links to a large number of red links on Wikipedia, which does not make it look notable and hampers the reader if s/he wishes to read further into or around the topic.
 * No. Per WP:RED, red links are a nonissue and too many of them is not a criteria for holding an article. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The exact details of the 1967 and 1996 brigade reshuffling are never going to read well and frankly seem like far too much detail for an encyclopaedia article. I would suggest either making them into a more readable and readily understandable/relevant paragraph or removing them altogether.
 * Not an actionable objection, and also an opinion. Overlooked, per WP:RGA. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Factually Accurate and Verifiable
 * The internet sources let this article down severely:
 * The source of in-line citation 26 does not mention that Mr. Koch served with the 104th and so does not support this article.
 * Removed the detail. — Ed! (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The source of in-line citations 2, 27, 30 and 31 is now a dead link. Given that 2 is the basis for five separate in-line citations, this knocks the article down in terms of sufficient referencing.  Citations 30 and 31 are odd, given that their names both deal with the Vietnam War, and yet they are supposed to be supporting facts relating to World War II.
 * He clicked on the wrong links. The first links in each cite were a webcite duplicate of the actual references, which appear as the second link in each of these refs. Even so, it is a very simple task to remove the archived versions (which are automatically added/updated by bots from time to time) and make them just fine. Not at all a reason to fail an article. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed extra webcite references. Replaced the vietnam resources with world war II resources on the same site. That site (history.army.mil) has only been down a few hours. Will give it some time before switching to a new source. — Ed! (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not all the sources to be found in the "References" section are explained and expanded upon in the "Sources" section
 * Once again, this is not one of the Good Article criteria. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be good to see more sources, though I know that individual unit histories are not the easiest things to come by, particularly in numbers.
 * Opinion. Overlooked, per WP:RGA. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Broad
 * The article is not sufficiently broad in scope to be a good article. It feels like a race through the history of the division, rather than a comprehensive encyclopaedia article.  More discussion around a couple of issues would be welcome:
 * Also not an actionable complaint. Overlooked, per WP:RGA. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the lead and in the History -> World War II section that the division was the first to be trained specifically in night operations. This is fascinating.  I now want to know why the Army felt it was necessary to train a unit of this size in night fighting, whether more units were trained or if it was an unrepeated experiment, if their special training was used or if, in the end, they were simply used as a normal infantry unit in Europe.
 * Statements are made and then not explained or elaborated upon. Why did it take temporary command of the 60th Infantry Regiment?  What was the reason for the Corps organisation changes within the US Ninth Army?
 * Such moves were very common and based mostly on geographic location of the commands. Even so, the organization of the Corps is not relavent to this division's history per the precedent of other division articles because they had no direct effect on the division. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral
 * The article is neutral and free from POV.

Stable
 * The article is stable and is not subject to edit wars.

Illustrated
 * The article would benefit greatly from a map or maps detailing the division's advance and major operations during World War II.
 * It is plenty illustrated to the satsfaction of the Good Article criteria. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For these reasons, the article fails the good article nomination process. Chrisfow (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reopened the review for another editor. — Ed! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed, given your history of writing for Wikipedia, I have absolutely no problem in assuming your good faith, though it seems to me that you are striving harder to make this a "Good Article" than you are to make it a good article. In hindsight I think that I was too hasty in not placing it on hold as you have acted quickly on some of my suggestions, however, some serious problems remain:
 * "Per the reference, the division did not keep a running tally during the war itself, and a large majority of said prisoners surrendered by default following the end of the war." This is an encyclopeadia article.  As you know, an encyclopeadia is a tertiary source.  You read an encyclopeadia to get an overview of the topic, most often when you don't have the time or inclination to go through the secondary and primary sources.  So, failing to mention something because it is in the reference that you have provided rather defeats the object of writing a tertiary source in the first place.
 * Clarified in the article. — Ed! (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that making the accounts of the 1967 and 1996 brigade reshuffling read better is "not an actionable objection". The guide to reviewing good articles quite rightly states that passing an article simply because it is as good as it is ever going to get is not right.  If you do not feel that this section can be better presented or written, then the article simply cannot pass because it is not well written in its entirety.
 * I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said that calling it unfixable is an unhelpful complaint. You don't unilaterally decide that a problem is unfixable in a GA review, you tell the person what your concerns are and how you suggest they can be improved, and work with them to see if the problem can be fixed. Only then is it possible to see if they are unfixable. In this case, I have reworded them to make more sense, and it wasn't at all difficult to do. — Ed! (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is reasonable to suggest that the article should be broader, because as I said at present it is little more than a race through the history and it neglects to discuss in detail other pertinent aspects of the division and its history. As I said in the bullet above, if you do not feel that this is actionable, and that this is as good as the article is ever going to get, then that is not the same as being a "Good Article".
 * You'll need to be specific as to exactly which "other pertinent aspects" need to be added. I'd be happy to add to the article whatever major omissions you think are necessary, I just need to know what to look for. — Ed! (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the sources in the footnotes are not expanded in the References section, which you then said is not a GA criteria. It actually is.  GA quality articles should "provide references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout".  The Guide to Layout then provides a "main article" link to Citing Sources (short footnotes) which deals with the way in which you have cited sources here and how they should be laid out.
 * All three of the books I cited in footnotes in the "References" section are fully listed in the "Sources" section. What else needs to be done? This has always been sufficent in my past GA reviews and I can't think of anything else that needs expanding reference-wise. — Ed! (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally, you are correct that the article is illustrated enough for the GA criteria. As you know, illustration is never a bar to GA articles, unless the illustrations that are present breach copyright.  My point about illustration was therefore a piece of friendly advice, and the spirit with which you took it is one of the main reasons I say that you seem more interested in achieving the status of GA rather than actually making this a good article.  I know that you do value maps, because many of your other articles have them, so why is it that this article would not benefit from the same treatment?
 * I do value them, but I can find no maps that specifically deal with the movements of this division on Wikipedia, and I don't know specifically enough about its movements to make one on my own. Other images could be added, I suppose, showing any people or general battles it partook in, but don't feel comfortable making a map by myself. — Ed! (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to change the status of this article to "on hold" rather than awaiting review. If you still want to go for a second opinion, do so and I will make no further changes to this review - I'm not interested in getting in to an edit war with you. Chrisfow (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A) Red links to blue B) Just a little bit too short. Recommendation: more source books, peer review and welcome back for GA review. Peltimikko (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GAR and WP:RGA, red links are not a criterion for problems in a GA review, and there is also no length requirement for an article. — Ed! (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per good article criteria, which is followed when carrying out a GA review, there is one section that tells reviewers to look out for layout, and is also covered in this section, which informs the reviewer to point out if any red links appear in an article, so that they can be removed, before the GA can be passed. Similar to the 2 other articles which I did the Ga reviews on, they had red links, and kindly pointed out to you that the error needs to be fixed.  I think the reviewer above is merely pointing out the same thing as I did on those 2 other reviews. Pr3st0n (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Question  Based on this sentence, ''Additionally, two soldiers from the division received the Medal of Honor for service with the division. They are Willy F. James, Jr. and Cecil H. Bolton.[29][30][31][32]'' You have four citations? But there are only two men who received the MOH. How did this work? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The complete list of World War II recipients is spread across the four pages. For total clarification, I thought it wise to include the whole list to show that these two are the only ones on it. — Ed! (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As none of the commentors above seem interested in taking over the review as a whole, I will do so, if that is agreeable to the nominator. My comments:
 * Review by Dana boomer


 * Red links are acceptable in a good article, as they are acceptable in any article on Wikipedia. I would recommend that any red link to a subject not likely to be notable enough for its own article be removed, but any others can stay.
 * I've cut out all red links but the infantry regiments and brigades, which I plan to create articles for myself. — Ed! (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The last external link (A story from the Inde River Operation) deadlinks.
 * Removed. — Ed! (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to know a little bit more about why the two soldiers received the Medal of Honor. This isn't a requirement, more a personal curiosity.
 * Added a few details about each soldier's medal. — Ed! (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead could stand a slight bit of expansion, as it just feels on the short side. Technically, it meets lead requirements, so it's not a big deal one way or the other.
 * Expanded lead. — Ed! (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the body of the article, it says that the unit only had one soldier that was awarded the Medal of Honor during WWII. In the Legacy section, it says that two soldiers were awarded the MoH, and on both soldier's pages it says that they were awarded the MoH for their service in WWII. Which is correct?
 * Fixed the body to say "two Medals of Honor" — Ed! (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

These are my comments for tonight. I will finish my review of the prose and post any further comments I have in the morning (getting called away to deal with some RL stuff). You can either take care of these issues over night or wait until I've finished my review, I don't mind either way. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have finished my review, and added one more comment to the list above. Overall, this is a nice little article, and once the above issues have been taken care of, I will be glad to pass it to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review of this article, it has been waiting for a proper GA review for a very long time. — Ed! (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright, everything looks good with the article, so I am passing it to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)