Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front (World War I) order of battle/archive1


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

The list was not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC).

American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front (World War I) order of battle

 * Nominator(s): Tomandjerry311 (need to talk?) 15:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an important article about American involvement in World War I. Currently an A-class list. It has had a FLC before but was failed due to a lack of comments. All comments welcome.Tomandjerry311 (need to talk?) 15:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Support. Although I don't know much about these specific topics, I question what more could be added or improved and could not think of anything. I'm sure those familiar with this topic will have some comments, but as far as I can see this list is an excellent candidate that deserves FL status. Great sourcing, can't really ask for more information on the lead (or any cleanup for that matter) and I feel like this is comprehensive and complete. Well done on this list, I hope it gets promoted this time. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Although i would have recommended you peer reviewed it first. Here's a few comments, feel free to cross them out when they have been dealt with or if you feel it is not necessary,
 * "During the United States campaigns in World War I the AEF fought in France alongside French and British allied forces in the last year of the war, against Imperial German forces." Should specify the last year of the war, incase someone doesn't know, purely because it's in the lead paragraph.
 * " seized German ships, borrowed Allied ships, " this could use some rewording, perhaps "german ships seized by the navy, and ships that were borrowed from allies,"
 * "Barely any American troops were sent to Europe in 1917, since Pershing ordered all AEF forces to be well-trained before going overseas." two things with this one, for one what does well trained mean? it does not elaborate, and two, when the next paragraph talks about 1 million troops in 1918, the barely any part seems a little weird, if it is saying that his order was repealed, then it could use some clarification.
 * The different army breakdowns could use some work, while I do love conciseness, I feel that they are a bit lacking.
 * The image under I corps is excellent, more should be added if available.
 * Is there a reason that some of the field artillery regiments and motor regiments aren't linked when no article exists and some are?
 * The unassigned divisions thing could perhaps have some better explanations, of why they weren't attached, or else if they function on their own or just joined up with other units ad hoc.
 * That's the end of my comments, good job overall, I think it should definitely get promoted. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments A very constructed list, but I have some queries before I give my support. Except the first four sections, in all other sections the "Notes" is completely empty with nothing for any of divisions. In such case, remove the columns completely from the respective sections. Because keeping such empty is of no such other than making it more heavy. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The nominator has not addressed any of the issues raised by Iazyges or me. There are no improvements done to the list following the review. Close to 2 months I would like to ping, and  to decide on this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Question Did the various armies and corps have non-divisional units assigned to them? (artillery, engineers, supply units, etc). If so, they should be added in some way. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nominator appears to have stopped editing (last seen beginning of October with a message that they may retire), and there are still pending comments, so closing this nomination as not promoted. -- Pres N  22:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.