Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Marine Corps/archive1

United States Marine Corps
I to request the peer review of this article. Or: Geez, we have so many American users here, lets push this for "featured". ;-) The topic surely deserves it. Please help since I am already fully convinced of the article - but that's surely only POV. :-) --Predator capitalism 11:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want to get this featured I'd suggest sorting out the awfully messy 'Organization' section which is just a bunch of lists which should be converted into prose. There are more lists in other sections, the same thing should be done with those too. The main thing this article needs is References and in-line citations in the form of footnotes. — Wackymacs 12:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Did it where I saw it possible. --Predator capitalism 05:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There, I did some for you and cleaned up some sections. Now you need to work on getting references and putting footnotes in the article. — Wackymacs 08:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

All up the article is informative and well structured. Writing as an Australian, I'm happy to report that the article is free of the US-centalism which blights many articles on US institutions written by Americans. I do, however, feel that the article covers a bit too much ground and should perhaps be split into seperate articles (for instance, the history of the USMC is a rich and interesting topic which deserves its own section). Some more specific sugestions are: Should the Warrior's creed and the Marines' Hymn be added as examples of Marine culture? Possibly I could also add the cadence lines which explain the Marine Corps colours since they aren't yet. Cadences are a good point too, by the way, but are they really relevant? --Predator capitalism 16:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The 'creation and history' section would benefit from some sub-headings.
 * should mention the USMC's involvement in Afghanistan in the Corps recent history
 * The section on the 'Reputation of the Marine Corps' is rather lightweight at present. More substantive criticisms of the marines, such as whether their role is necessary, whether they take too many casualties and so on are more significant than incidents which earned some bad PR.
 * Already articles for those: Rifle Creed, Marines Hymn. Also, I concur with Nick Dowling's feedback above. &mdash;Kenyon (t&middot;c) 00:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The pages orginzation needs help, and the Marines deployed in Wars area has some sections that really ought to be expanded. Another thing I would do is line up the wartime pictures with the corresponding wartime history. And I did not see any references to Marine security for the president or embassies or anything of that nature. TomStar81 21:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, TomStar. I still have a little question: why should there be a reference for somethind that is quite extensively being discussed in lanked WP article? BTW, this is not "my" article....somebody with a bit more time could work these suggestions in, although I'd be glad to help. --Predator capitalism 05:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess I missed that link. 21:25 UTC translates to something like 4:30 AM here; under those circumstances it would be easy to miss alot :-).