Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front order of battle


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

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

American Expeditionary Forces order of battle

 * Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class standards. Just an order of battle for the American Expeditionary Forces. Might be a little short on content for the history of corps, but since I could not find anymore RS's for content, I just left it there for now. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Those changes look good to me, thanks for that. I've continued to copy edit and make some further changes, pls see here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Expeditionary_Forces_order_of_battle&diff=651433202&oldid=651397625]. If there are no issues with those I'm now fairly comfortable with where this ORBAT is at (although I'm no expert on the AEF) and only have one more point:
 * Comments '''Involved Support (any closing co-ordinator pls note I have significantly contributed to this article now during the cse of this review – 99 edits at the time of writing)
 * Good work so far, just a few quick comments from me:.
 * Organisation above corps-level should probably be included – my understanding is there were two armies (First United States Army and Second United States Army), with a third forming.
 * Added--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead includes some good information; however, it probably needs to be referenced in this case (as it is not just a summary of information included in the sections below it with refs).
 * Added.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The planned size of the AEF (4 million) and the fact that some 2 million men had reached France by the Armistice is probably worthy of being included in the lead (its currently in the infobox), but would of course need to be supported with a citation.
 * No citation, might want some more reliable info.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a citation and added something for this now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made a bunch of copy edits, mostly to formatting but a few others too – see here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Expeditionary_Forces_order_of_battle&diff=651147248&oldid=651120315]. Pls check I didn't muff anything up. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also some of the images had been lacking some of the req'd bibliographic details / licensing information, especially File:AEF marching in France.jpg. I've gone ahead and made the changes I think were req'd now; however, if someone with more knowledge about images is able to have a look and check what I've done and make any further cmts / changes as req'd that would be appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a few notable units / formations that are mentioned in the ORBAT but aren't wikilinked – in particular some of the subordinate brigades. It might be a good idea to wikilink these where pages exist. This category might help you locate which have articles – Category:Infantry brigades of the United States Army. Anotherclown (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Linked--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the lead you currently have "When it was sent to Europe, it had seven corps...". Is 7 correct? Only 5 US corps are listed (with two attached French corps). Can you pls check this? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there were nine corps, but there were only structure info for only five of them.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries – could a note be added to explain this (with a ref)? Anotherclown (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note added with ref.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In its current form this note is not clear enough and the reference given (Gibbons p 91) does not seem to mention anything about nine corps [see the Project Gutenberg copy here . My assumption is that the plan was for nine corps but only five had taken the field by the time of the armistice. Indeed from what I can tell the General Organization Plan of the AEF planned for it to consist of 9 corps in three field armies and there is structure information for all of these organizations actually seems to be here: (including Third Army and VI-IX Corps which are not currently listed in your ORBAT). As these appear to have actually been formed and served during the occupation of Germany these need to added for completeness. Quite a few publications state that only five had been formed by the end of the war (including several already cited, but also Gibbons p. 388 which states: "By the 1st of September, the United States of America had five such army corps in the field, martialling a strength of about one and one-half million bayonets." As such the way forward as I see it:
 * Make the lead clear in regards to the fact of the planned vs actual size at the armistice; and ✅ - decided to have a go at this myself
 * Expand the ORBAT to include the missing army and corps; and ✅ – I have fixed it--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Lastly I am concerned about the accuracy of some of your referencing. Can you pls clarify the cause of the Gibbons p. 91 discrepancy? Unless I missed something this does not support the information you stated it does so I'm left to wonder if the other refs are accurate. Was this a one off mistake? Can you pls double check your other refs? Anotherclown (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead myself IRT the nine vs five corps issue, so have now marked this as done; however, this still leaves the issue of the structure being incomplete (i.e Third Army and VI-IX Corps). A few other points come to mind as I've worked through this:
 * Ranks for commanders should probably be included;
 * The list of commanders for most formations appears to be incomplete (these are available from the two Army War College Historical Section publications; and
 * Are there page numbers available for the Coffman and Pershing references? This really needs to be added to satisfy WP:V. Anotherclown (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I could not find any page numbers for those two refs.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also it occurred to me that the American Expeditionary Force Siberia and American Expeditionary Force North Russia should probably be included. I'm not really very familiar with US military history though so I wonder what others think about this. Anotherclown (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think adding AEF North Russia and Siberia is really necessary, as I wrote the article to be about the AEF (hence the name and links), and I am pretty sure they served at the different fronts, times, and reasons (aka. The AEF North Russia and AEF Siberia were sent to support the White Russian side in the Russian Civil War, with other Allied Powers (including Britain and France).). -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Weren't the AEF North Russia and Siberia still part of the American Expeditionary Force though? As someone not familiar with the topic the name alone would suggest so to me at least (and therefore possibly to other readers). That said I agree with your reasoning for not including here, but only if the ORBAT you are currently working on is intended to only cover the AEF on the Western Front (which again seems a valid limit to me and I would recommend doing so). If this is the case then it needs to be made clear that this ORBAT is only for the Western Front, whilst I think mention of the AEF North Russia and Siberia could still be made in the lead (for instance you currently mention those deployed to Italy) for completeness / accuracy. A suggestion as to how we make this distinction clear though doesn't come easily to me at the moment though. So again I'm open to suggestions / opinions of others. One possible way might be a name change for the article e.g. to something like Order of Battle for the American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front or some such variation (there is a List of orders of battle which may give you some ideas for names as there are quite a range of variations and as far as I'm aware no real policy to dictate naming conventions). Anotherclown (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Renamed and moved. -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've continued to help expand the ORBAT today and made a few more changes, some outstanding points / questions I see:
 * Blurbs need to be added to most of the formations (all Armies and Corps need one), and others need to be expanded (like what you have II Corps for instance). At the least I'd recommend that they should mention date of formation, key activities and demobilization.
 * Added--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you intend on adding ranks for the commanders? I think it would be appropriate.
 * Added--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Some formations have complete lists of commanders, whilst others only have one (presumably that at the time the ORBAT is correct as at) – as such you probably need to standardize on one or the other (I am partially responsible for adding some of these, sorry).
 * Standardized, but since I don't know the last couple, I just left them there.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you intend on listing all commanders then the date of their command should be included too (you do this in some places but not others).
 * Is the infobox really appropriate? Most ORBATs I have seen don't use them, and this one mostly seems to duplicate that at the American Expeditionary Forces article.
 * Removed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is http://www.vetshome.com/military_corps_patches_history_1.htm a reliable source per WP:RS? I'm not 100% sure it qualifies. From looking at it you could probably use the Army War College Historical Section to replace this reference fairly easily which would strengthen the quality of your reference base. Anotherclown (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok I've gone through and completed a final copy-edit. Well done in seeing this project through to this point, quite an effort. I'm not in anyway an expert on the AEF; however, from my limited understanding of the topic and the research I've done during this review I think that this is a fair attempt at a ORBAT and am willing to give it my support for promotion. Pls note though that during the cse of this review I have made quite a few edits – 99 at the time of writing – admittedly most were copy-editing but there has also been some content, so I think that I would be considered by others to have contributed to it to the point where I am no longer uninvolved. Per current processes ACRs require the support of three uninvolved editors, so if this is to be successful we will probably need a few more editors to review it and support it as well. If I can assist later in the review I will attempt to continue to do so though of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, good work on this so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the first sentence of the lead seems quite awkward and probably should be rewritten
 * Rewritten--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * please use a consistent date format. For instance compare: "12 July 1918" with "August 15, 1918"
 * Fixed
 * I don't think the Key section is really necessary
 * Removed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * grammar "The I Corps" (and similar constructions); this should just be "I Corps" as it doesn't need the definate article
 * Addressed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * what's the Baker misson? It gets mentioned in one of the photo captions without any context. Could you provide a link to an article that explains it?
 * There is no article explaining the Baker Mission, it just got mentioned in the main article on the AEF.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, I found this:, which provides a little context. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added my support now as all my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Other than that I don't see any problems. The article's title is a bit of a mouthful but I suppose there isn't much room for rewording that. Freikorp (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I Corps painting image should mention it is a depiction by Don Troiani. It is currently presented as if it were an actual photograph.
 * Fixed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review Support
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * File:America's_First_Convoy_1917.png: should the publisher be Houghton Mifflin?
 * File:Americans_in_Champagne-Marne_offensive.jpg: source says that those pictured are National Guard, not that the artist himself is – do we have sources to verify the license given? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks, Nikkimaria, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Does the uploader of Americans_in_Champagne-Marne_offensive.jpg have the right to release it under that license? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I found it on Flickr, and I am pretty sure it was released under the specified license that it was stated on the page.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 22:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine, but since the uploader is not the creator, are we sure the uploader has the right to release the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * although I have I suggestion. Some of your corps are dated as of a battle (or campaign) and others have a date.  I suggest in particular that they have dates and other information as available.  For example, I Corps (structure as of the Battle of Saint-Mihiel) tells me nothing about when....auntieruth (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've attempted my best to fix it. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Much BETTER! thanks.  auntieruth (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 