Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/172nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States)

172nd Infantry Brigade (United States)
Article passed a GA. Looking to get it promoted to A-class then, of course, FA class. Are there any suggestions for how it can be improved? - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  20:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling
This article is in good shape, and should be able to reach A-class after a bit more work. It provides a good overview of the unit and I also like the use of photos and images. My suggestions for how it could be developed are:
 * The introduction needs to be tidied up. The first sentence should be included in a paragraph and the wording can be improved (eg, "the brigade was deployed during World War I but never saw combat there" -> "the brigade was sent to France during World War I but did not see combat") ✅
 * I'm a bit uncomfortable with the sentence "It was also deployed during World War II but only saw a few months of combat" given that the brigade didn't really exist during the war - this should be reworded to make it clear that its talking about the small unit from which the brigade claims lineage rather than the actual brigade. ✅
 * "Its infamous 16 month deployment in that campaign was one of the longest deployments ever for a US Army unit, and the most time deployed for any US Unit since the Vietnam War." This seems incorrect - many US Army units spent several years in Vietnam, and units were deployed outside the United States for very long times in the Civil War and World War II. The brigade appears to have the distinction of the longest tour to Iraq, but the length of the deployment is far from unprecedented. ✅
 * The 'Organization' section should explain the different roles of the units and how they are themselves structured. ✅
 * Was the 86th Reconnaissance Troop an independent unit, or did it form part of a division? ✅
 * The unit is called "the brigade" on one instance in the World War II section - this should be changed to 'the troop'. ✅
 * Is it really correct to write that the "3rd Platoon, 86th Reconnaissance Troop was converted and redesignated as the 172nd Infantry Brigade"? - this implies that the platoon was hugely expanded into a full brigade. I imagine what happened is is that the platoon was carrying the lineage of the former brigade and that this was transferred to the new unit.
 * "The 172nd Brigade was designated a Reorganization Objective Army Division (ROAD)" this is unclear - was it a division or a brigade?
 * I've tried to explain this; reactivated as a ROAD formation, but in brigade size. Buckshot06(prof) 14:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The section on the Cold War seems to imply that the brigade did nothing but periodically reorganise. What was its role during this period (eg, was it to defend Alaska, or was it intended to deploy elsewhere in the event of war), and were there any highlights or lowlights?
 * Some details for this can be found in Gen. Schwarzkopf's biography, 'It Doesn't Take A Hero'. Buckshot06(prof) 14:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'Transformation' section seems a bit short, especially as the conversion to a Stryker brigade involve more than just being re-equipped. How did the brigade manage this transition?
 * There's nothing on what the brigade did during its deployment to Iraq prior to November 2006. The reason its deployment was extended (were other units' tours also extended?), what happened to the units which had reached Alaska (were they sent back to Iraq?) and the reaction this extension provoked should also be mentioned.
 * The "Reactivation in Germany" section needs to be updated now that the unit has been reactivated. ✅ Nick Dowling (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Borg_Sphere
Other than that, I can't find any major problems that haven't been already mentioned by Nick. It looks good and I doubt you will have much of a problem at A-class, and I wish you luck for it. Borg Sphere (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Put a couple inlines in the lead, for the tour length, WWI operations not completely clear, and a couple other instances.
 * I purposefully made the lead general so that citations in it would not be necessary, per WP:LEADCITE. All information in the lead section is now cited in other sections of the article. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  02:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)