Talk:40th Air Division

Comments
I began to make a few changes but since, to be honest, the Air Force is not really my bag so I lost interest fairly wuickly. I do have a few thoughts though. You need to rely less on lists in the article. By that I mean the "Lineage", "Stations" and "Assignments" sections would be better turned into prose and added to the history section. Place the awards section at the bottom of the page right above references. remove the list of commanders as it is too much information and looks terrible. If there were notable commanders then add their names to the infobox and give them a mention in the history section. Also might be good to look for references other than the PD info if you want the article to achieve higher ratings. Hope this helps.--Looper5920 20:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the suggestions and work on the article! The reason the "notable commanders" section is so long is that there were a LOT of generals who commanded the division.  I figure if they can get a senate conformation for their rank, then they're notable.  I didn't put ALL of them in there (even though I'm sure it looks like it!)....  Thanks also for the "lists into prose" idea.  I'll try to incorporate it more as I add more divisions into Wikipedia.  Actually, I wish there was a way to decrease the font size on the "notable commanders" section - that way the general officers could still be included, and it wouldn't look so much like a laundry list instead of an article.  (note to me: PROSE not LIST!!!!)   8^)    NDCompuGeek 20:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just the advice of someone who has written 1 or 2 of these articles...get rid of the list of COs. It looks terrible and not all of them are notable.  There are much more famous units with many more notable commanders who do not do this.  If nothing else...remove all of there names from the infobox and just add the famous ones there.  This trend only occurs on Air Force articles for some reason.  Articles that consist of nothing but lists go nowhere.  Just my opinion, take it for what it is worth.--Looper5920 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)