Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/I Corps (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.

Promoted. EyeSerene talk 09:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I Corps (United States)

 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. — Ed! (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * No problems reported with external links. All images need alt text. Due to a server error I am unable to check the disambig links at this time. No disambig links reported.
 * I find it hard to believe that there are so many notable commanders of the group. Surely these men were not all five star officers, our active during US blitzkrieg campaigns. Half the names I do not even recognize. I would consider some serious trimming to the section.
 * I took "notable commanders" to mean people notable enough to have their own articles. usually a smaller list on smaller unit articles. What should I limit the list to? — Ed! (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It happens that this particular filed was added at my suggestion; at the time I was tinkering with our Fort Bliss article, and we had a field for the current commander of a post (these days, the CO is usually a two star). That was all well and good, but Fort Bliss was commanded by Gen. Pershing back in the day, and it did not seem right to me to a have a field for the current guy but not a well known commander like Pershing. That is why asked if we could add a field for notable commanders. In my minds eye (in other words, my opinion on the matter of notability as it relates to this discussion) the field should be reserved for men who were famous in later life or in their service branches, men who had held marshal rank or five star position, men whose skill and legendary service to the unit deserved to be recognized. Since then these fields have provided an avenue for such men to be recognized long after their command of a base or unit has passed. Its this perspective that compels me to raise the issue of notability here since most commands have only one or two men of such caliber. To be fair, and in the interest of full disclosure, the parameter field only states: notable_commanders – optional – any notable former commanders of the unit; judgement of notability is left to individual article editors. Despite this, I still feel that the section could be trimmed. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the list down to major wartime commanders, four-stars, and a few other notables, and trimmed the rest. Good enough?
 * Lose the history header and bump the rest of the header up a level. The entire article is history, so it makes no sense to have that as the lead header.
 * In the New Guinia campaign section you have the following line: "On July 6, 1942 Lieutenant General Robert L. Eichelberger took command of the corps which he was destined to lead through the majority of its service in the war." I strongly recommend you lose the "destined to lead through the majority of its service in the war" part, its too flower for the article, and for all we know it may have been the luck of the draw, not destiny. I would also suggest linking to Lieutenant General since this is the first appearance of the term in the article.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the same section you have the line "The Task Force established itself ashore after a successful amphibious assault on April 19, 1944 and began the reduction of the Japanese forces in that area for the subsequent establishment of air bases there." This reads awkwardly, can you reword it?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Luzon section you have the line "Before the assault could be launched, Japan surrendered, following the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." May I suggest that you link to the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of linking to nuclear weapon, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki individually? Since this former article discusses the nuclear attacks it would save people the effort of having to go to article A to get to article B.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the section "Organization" you have the I Corps insignia and then beside it the lettering "I Corps ([Fort Lewis, WA)" Me thinks perhaps you were trying to link Fort Lewis, but however that extra bracket got in there its unneeded in its current for and should be removed or coupled with the rest of the coding to form a link to an article.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work on these army articles. Keep it up! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments - just a few points I noticed: Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dashes used in date ranges should be endashes, not emdashes.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tom about the notable commanders section; it is too long to interest the reader. It appears to me that you have just added names of those who have commanded the unit during a period of war.
 * See above comment. How should I trim the article? — Ed! (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a little bit of unpleasant sandwiching of text between images in the "Stalemate" section.
 * I've shrunk the size of one image, this is all I can think to do. — Ed! (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have slightly tweaked the placement of two images to remove the sandwiching; hope that is ok? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything in the "Honors" section is completely without a cite, and requires them.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Images require alt text.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Alright, I'm happy. I would personally trim about two or three more guys from the notable commanders section, but thats me. As a word of caution to a fellow contributor: FAC people do not like change, so be prepared to address this issue at FAC if and when you get there. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support.
 * "Soldier of the 21st Infantry, 24th Infantry Division captured and executed by North Korean forces, 1950" Which was it, 21st or 24th? If you mean 21st regiment or something, please specify, picture captions are among the most read parts of and article and this one is rather confusing.
 * I've made some minor stylistic changes.


 * Otherwise it looks good, good job. – Joe   N  16:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the 21st Infantry Regiment caption. — Ed! (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I believe that this article meets A class crieria. Well done. I have a couple of minor points, though:
 * In the Sources section: should Malkasian come before Marston alphabetically? (I might be having a dumb day, if so I will make sure to give myself an uppercut)
 * The lead appears to be five paragraphs, when the max is four per WP:LEAD, could one be consolidated? Anyway, great work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed both concerns. — Ed! (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


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