Talk:Battle of Fort Driant

Comments/suggestions
Hi, good work so far. Per the request at WP:MHA I have reviewed the article and have the following comments and suggestions:


 * consider adding an infobox, see Battle of Sio for an example (it is a Featured Article);
 * the addition of a map would help assist the reader to understand the battle more easily;
 * the bare urls/web links could be made to look more user friendly by formatting then using the cite web or cite book templates;
 * it is best to avoid using interchangable proper nouns, e.g World War I and Great War, as this can confuse some readers;
 * I suggest expanding the reference base to use a number of high quality paper sources if they are available;
 * for a B class rating, all information needs to be covered by an inline citation. This can be done by adding one at the end of the paragraph if everything came from the one source, or if multiple sources are used, multiple in line citations should be added where necessary (even in the body of the paragraph for individual sentences);
 * some of the grammar needs work, for instance: "which may contribute to the German's heavy resistence". This should be "which may have contributed to the Germans' heavy resistance" or something similar. Also: "deemed to costly as German fire proved to accurate for a successful attack to occur" should be "deemed too costly as German fire proved too accurate for a successful attack to occur";
 * some of the capitalisation is incorrct, e.g. "U.S. Third army" should be "U.S. Third Army" because it is a proper noun, same with "G-company", which should be "G Company" (without the hyphen) ;
 * some more wikilinks could be introduced, for example: "Franco-Prussian War", "World War I", "squad", "P-47";
 * is it possible to provide more detail in the Battle of Aftermath sections, they seem quite light;
 * per WP:LAYOUT, the See also section should go above the Notes or References sections.

When you feel that the article is ready for re-assessment, please list it again at WP:MHA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing
This sentence is missing something: "E Company, G Company and the 818th Tank Destroyer Company began their attack on Fort Driant." I would say that the 'something' is the companys' battalion and regiment. The article only mentions Divisions and Corps. Looking at the first reference gives no clue.

I think the sentence should read something like: T Company, the 55th Battalion, 879th Regiment, or something similar (at first mention anyway).

Also, both the article and the only functioning reference cover a lot more than three companies, or is that all that was used at Fort Driant?

Does anyone have the answers?

RASAM (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Battle of Fort Driant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721222840/http://www.90thdivisionassoc.org/90thdivisionfolders/mervinbooks/XX/XX02.pdf to http://www.90thdivisionassoc.org/90thdivisionfolders/mervinbooks/XX/XX02.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721222840/http://www.90thdivisionassoc.org/90thdivisionfolders/mervinbooks/XX/XX02.pdf to http://www.90thdivisionassoc.org/90thdivisionfolders/mervinbooks/XX/XX02.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100908095120/http://www.jcs-group.com:80/military/war1941army/194409driant.html to http://www.jcs-group.com/military/war1941army/194409driant.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521213133/http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/lorraine/lorraine-ch09.html to http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/lorraine/lorraine-ch09.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)