User:Jtackaberry/sandbox

I am trying to figure and play around in the sandbox. Looking at settings and how to cite!

Article evaluation- Thomas Tackaberry

Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. It was distracting that the ribbons/awards were not connected and the chart format was off. There was no information out of date, but there was a lot of information that could be added. I would improve the format of the page and add a lot of missing details.

The article is neutral, and there are no claims heavily biased towards a particular position.

All of the links and citations are accurate. The sources support the claim of the article, but there are numerous amount of sources that are not included. Each fact is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. Most of the references come from military journals and news sources. While they are not completely a neutral source, they are just stating facts and in this situation appear to be natural.

There were no conversations going on in the talk section. This article is rated as Stub-Class- a short beginning of an article that needs more content. I am going to be including this article as part of this course.

Contribute to the Thomas Tackaberry Article
I would like to contribute more details in each specific war which currently appears underdeveloped. Adding details about his earlier life and family to add more depth to his article. I plan to find more sources and strengthen the page.

-DRAFT- Thomas Tackaberry - larger font I would like to contribute more details in each specific war which currently appears underdeveloped. Adding details about his earlier life and family to add more depth to his article. I plan to find more sources and strengthen the page.

-DRAFT- Thomas Tackaberry - larger font Thomas Howard Tackaberry (September 6, 1923 – April 3, 2017) was a lieutenant general in the United States Army. He was a veteran of World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. He enlisted in the Army Reserves at the age of 19 durring World War II. He was a recipient of three Distinguished Service Crosses, five Silver Stars and a Soldiers medal. He served as Commander of the XVIII Airborne Corps from 1979 to 1981.[1][2] Lieutenant General Tackaberry was one of the most highly decorated officers in the U.S. Army. He ranks among the top 10 most decorated military servicemembers in the U.S. military history today. "Described as a ‘‘grunt’s angel,’’ Lt. Gen. Tackaberry was devoted to his men, not only ensuring they were always supplied for the fight but physically prepared as well. Leading from the front, Lt. Gen. Tackaberry set a high bar for fitness with his men and led them on long training runs.

Years of Service U.S. Army Reserve 1942-1943

U.S. Army 1943-1981

World War II 1942-1945

Cold War 1945-1981

Korean War 1952-1953

Vietnam War 1966-1967, 1969-1970

Korean War (ADD MORE DEPTH TO THIS) In 1952, while serving as a company commander, he earned the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism near Chorwon, Korea when he voluntarily went to relieve a patrol which had lost its commander. Tackaberry directed the soldiers back toward their lines and personally covered their retreat at the risk of his own life. He also received two Silver Stars for his service in Korea.[3]

Vietnam War (ADD MORE DEPTH TO THIS)

In 1966 Tackaberry was serving in Vietnam as a lieutenant colonel and earned another [Service Cross] for heroism near Bồng Sơn, South Vietnam when he led a search and destroy operation in which a 15-man platoon was pinned down and its leader killed. He then ordered his unarmed command helicopter to land near the firefight and ran through intense enemy fire to reach the platoon and assume command. When reinforcements arrived, he led an assault on enemy bunkers, forcing the more significant North Vietnamese force to retreat.[4]

In 1969, he had been promoted to colonel1 and was the brigade commander of the 196th Infantry Brigade when he earned a third Distinguished Service Cross, making him one of the few individuals who had earned three or more Distinguished Service Crosses. Tackaberry also received three more Silver Stars for his service in Vietnam. He then served as Chief of Staff of the 23rd Infantry Division.

Cold War Promoted to General- served in units- accomplished/apart of

Later life ( ADD MORE DEPTH TO THIS) Tackaberry and his wife Lilian had six children. Their twin sons, Burt and Kief Tackaberry served as officers in the Army. His eldest grandson, Lt Col. Andrew S. Tackaberry took command of 6th Battalion, 37th Field Artillery Regiment from June 2015 to 2017. Another grandson, Lt Col. Jonathan P. Tackaberry took command of 1st Squadron, 17th Cavalry Regiment on May 2017.[5]"He even remained dedicated to fitness well into his later life, completing 10 push-ups, despite being 93 years old and confined to a wheel chair, after being challenged by a family member" stated the North Carolina Representive at the 115th congressional sesson.

Tackaberry died on April 3, 2017, at the age of 93.[6][7]"We remember and honor the service, sacrifice, leadership and tremendous example of Lt. Gen. Thomas Tackaberry," Maj. Gen. Paul J. LaCamera, deputy commanding general of the 18th Airborne Corps and acting senior commander of Fort Bragg, said in the Observer report. "His legacy is forever enshrined in the history of the 82nd Airborne Division, 18th Airborne Corps and our great Army." His son Richard and daughter Elizabeth predeceased him. He was buried with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery on August 23, 2017.

Article evaluation
Overall

The lead itself did not makes a clear statement. The first paragraph leads you from the people who termed the phrase social presence theory to those who believe it is important. I think a lot of transition and information needs to be put in between this information. Also, there are a lot of grammar issues with the first paragraph. The first paragraph does not reflect the most important information and gives weight to the people involved in social presence theory rather than the theory itself. The sections are well organized but need to be reformatted and checked for grammar. I think the length of some of the sections could increase especially the significance section from the different perspective of contributors to the theory. I do think the article does try to convince the reader in a particular point and that you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article. What the article does well is format the main points into sections. I would suggest spending a lot of time on the grammar, updating the sources and adding information to the first few paragraphs. What I find relevant to my own article is ensuring to review it for formatting, grammar and that all the links are accurate.

Evaluating content

Everything in the article seems relevant to the topic. The only issue that I had was the formatting seemed to be off as the headings were as large after other blocks. I would recommend decreasing what is in bold under key concepts and classifications. Most of the information seemed to date before 2007. I would be interested in seeing if there were any sources that could be used as references and information that may be more current. It seemed that there were current sources that were not referenced and perhaps have more information to add from.

From wikipedia it states that the article has formatting, copy editing and grammar issues. I went through the article multiple times and did not see any major grammar issues. I did put it through grammarly and a few other programs and saw that there were some grammar issues that could be cleaned up. The last few sentences at the end of the article especially need some help with grammar and copy The article does also have a lot of information that could have links to other wikipedia pages as well.

Evaluating tone

I do not think the article is entirely neutral but I would say that it is more neutral than it appears to have a heavy bias. It should be reworded slightly in the significance and conclusion to help make it more of a neutral article.

Evaluating sources

The sources support the claim in the article. A few of the sources do not have links. All of the links I checked out worked. Not all of the facts had a references attached. I think there could be some work done to improve upon this. All of the sources seem to help support a neatural article showcasing well rounded information.

There has been numerous conversations about the definitions and terminilogy used in the article. The article is unrated and has the score of 58 completeness. Currently the article is part of a wikiproject. "This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): BeccaWarth."