Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/11th Airborne Division (United States)


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Passed  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

11th Airborne Division (United States)
I am submitting this article to the A-Class Review process as I wish to improve the article and attempt to get it to A-Class quality. Skinny87 (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Good work.  You might consider starting an article for the Knollwood Maneuver since it was a notable and important event in US Army history. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * Unlink lone years per MOS:UNLINKYEARS like in "in June 1944." and "January 1945, the "
 * Done!


 * There's some info that I'm unsure if they are referenced or not, like "Thanks to the success of the units of the 11th Airborne Division during the exercise, the airborne division as a concept for the American military was deemed to be effective and was allowed to remain." – otherwise most of the article is well referenced to reliable sources
 * Done, also added a citation although I screwed up trying to combine the refs as usual, and not sure how to do it properly.
 * Tried to sort it out, made it worse. Think I'll leave it and let someone who knows what they're doing get that one.
 * Fixed Gary King ( talk ) 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "on June 23 1945, in" – link the year
 * Done!


 * otherwise looks good. lots of good images, too.
 * Thanks, wish I could find more of the 11th Airborne though. Skinny87 (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King ( talk ) 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Another high quality piece of writing from Skinny87. There are no real problems as far as I can tell. I would like to second Cla's suggestion to start an article about the Knollwood Maneuver; given its importance in determining the fate of the American airborne forces, it's surely notable enough. Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd love to write it, but the info in 11th Airborne, apart from a few bits in 13th Airborne Division and 17th Airborne Division I didn't add and which I might later, is all there really is on it. Huston and Flanagan, with a bit in Devlin, are the only ones to mention it. It seems to have just faded into the background of military history. Skinny87 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support A nice article which meets the criteria. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)