Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:02, 25 March 2008.

173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)


Self Nomination - This article has undergone a sucessful GA and peer review over the past few months and has increased dramatically in quality. I think it is worthy of at least an attempt at FA nomination. Ed! (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment – as I mentioned in the article's talk page, two days ago, reference 9 does not support the unit's activities in Vietnam from '67 to '71. I think you should be using reference 12.  Also as mentioned in the article's talk page – "the Brigade served in Binh Dinh Province, seeing four more missions, Operation Washington Greene, Operation Greene Lightning, and Operation Greene Storm." – four more missions, with only three listed. Carré (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed both issues. -Ed! (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Lead says nothing about the unit honors, so it is not a proper summary. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -Ed! (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * What makes this http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html a reliable source? Likewise http://www.173rdairborne.com/menu.htm, http://www.casperplatoon.com/index.htm (this one would need publisher information if it's reliable), http://www.pressrepublican.com/,
 * Why wouldn't GlobalSecurity.org be a nonreliable site? It is notable enough, and I've never run into problems using it. PressRepublican is a news site, and the other two are societies created by webmasters with valid credentials, as it seems. Still, if they are completely unusable I suppose the information could be sourced to one of the other citations; none of them conflict with one another. -Ed! (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This http://www.goodbetterbest.net/facts.htm is probably not a reliable source for what it is sourced to.
 * Citation removed. -Ed! (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Shelby Stanton book needs publisher information.
 * Fixed. -Ed! (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the websites need publisher information and to be formatted consistently. Several have the author in the publisher spot
 * Please point me to the page where I can find out how to cite properly; I wasn't sure how to do this. -Ed! (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. Publisher on a website is the group that puts out the information. To use an example from this article, the http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/173abnbde.htm citation, the publisher would be GlobalSecurity.org, and for this one http://www.173abnbde.setaf.army.mil/newcomers.htm, the author would be 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team Staff (which honestly you might not have to put in) and the publisher would be 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team. For this one http://www.173rdairborne.com/heraldry.htm, looking at the page and the site..., the author would be Ken Gaudet (since at the bottom of the page it says "Information credited to Ken Gaudet") and the publisher would be 173rdairborne.com. Do the expamples help some? Ealdgyth | Talk 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also... Template:Cite web might help some. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/orl-asecgold08060803jun08.story is a dead link.
 * Citation Removed. -Ed! (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth | Talk 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Was there a rationale for the brigade's constitution in 1915? Was it related to the war in Europe, Pancho Villa...? Contexualising the creation of the brigade, if verifiable, could be of interest to the reader. I'm too tired to support or oppose the article right now (mild insomnia and Wikipedia are an ill-advised mixture ;-). SoLando (Talk) 07:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I went looking for that, it seems that the Brigade was just part of the pre-WWI buildup, but there are no reliable sources to state that directly. -Ed! (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to me. Minor issues with citations already mentioned above aside, I would recommend having the "Legacy" section come ahead of the "Honors" section, as the charts break the narrative text up. Amerique dialectics 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tentative Support&mdash;Overall a worthy article with a few minor issues.
 * There are some spaces around the en-dashes, which a few reviewers deem objectionable.
 * Should the airborne in "Airborne qualified" be lower-case?
 * Should the gold in "Iraqi Gold" be lower-case?
 * The format of the "Honors" section looks irregular in my browser. That is, the "Campaign Streamers table is offset to the right edge and the image of Alfred Rascon is not visible unless I scroll right. (My browser is half the screen width.)
 * I'm not completely certain about the citation formats. Some of them appear irregular. E.g. "U.S. releases Turkish troops" uses an inconsistent date; "US Army, Europe Press Release, March 23, 2004" externally links the date into the title and doesn't use the actual title of the article (plus there is a left square bracket at the end); "U.S. forces find suspected gold cache in Iraq" doesn't list the publication date, &c.
 * &mdash;RJH (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, about the "Honors" Graphs, I wasn't sure how to get those to float to the right (The kept overlapping) so I just set them with a bunch of    tags, which isn't a perfect solution, but I can't find any other way to keep them set. -Ed! (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the table flow. Are you willing to address the other issues?&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I took care of the upper-case letters, but I'm still a bit muddy on why my citations aren't correct...-Ed! (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—not well-written. Here are examples just from the lead, indicating the need for someone unfamiliar with the text to go through it thoroughly. Research edit history pages of similar articles to locate good copy-editors (from their edit summaries); ask them nicely, and you'll have collaborators, for the future too. In particular, there's a tendency to write for experts in this topic. See my queries below, which I should not have to pose.
 * "Activated in 1915, the 173rd Airborne Brigade saw service in both World War I and World War II, but is best remembered for its actions during the Vietnam War." Is "but" logical? The contrast—if it's there—is unclear. Perhaps just plain "and" is better?
 * "Well noted for its roles in ..."—"Well noted" is a little awkward, and fuzzy in meaning. I'm unsure whether "Honored for its ..." is good. Or better "For its roles in ...", if all decorations were for those two operations (?). Needs thought.
 * "The brigade eventually returned to the United States, when it was deactivated in 1972." No, the "when" doesn't work. "Where" would be better, but surely "... US, and was deactivated in ...".
 * "2005–2006"—Is "2005 and 2006" better?
 * Uh-oh: "currently"—how long will that be true for? You need a "As of 2008, the brigade is ..." (preferably an unlinked "as of"). There are other "currentlys", too.
 * "A decorated unit"—outsiders may wonder whether this is different from the decorations of individuals you've already mentioned. Was is one decoration? If so, perhaps give the year and it will be clearer. And decorations are different from awards, or not? Tony   (talk)  13:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC) PS I find the wrapping of the dates in the infoblot very hard to read. Can they be indented differently to avoid this? Why not string all of the dates into running text, separated by semicolons? Then the infloblot won't extend so far.  Tony   (talk)  13:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I wait for a non-expert copy editor to look through the page and restate things in layman's terms? -Ed! (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Query: no feedback on the copyedit since the 18th. What has been done, and have you contacted Tony to revisit the improvements?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.