Talk:Engineer Special Brigade/GA1

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 08:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will post a review here shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments: Fascinating article, Hawkeye - thanks for putting this together. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ext links all work and there are no dab links (no action required)
• Earwig reports copyright violation unlikely: [1] (no action required)
• the infobox mentions dates of 1942 and 1955 -- suggest mentioning these in the lead

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if it might be possible to expand the lead a little -- potentially by mentioning some of the major operations the the brigades took part in, in each theater?

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• and "all phases of the operations of Army units involved in embarking troops and equipment in small boats from the land, the approach to and loading on a hostile beach, the establishment of a beachhead, and the preparation and initiation of an attack inland." -- suggest attributing this quote in text

  You mean "Ltr (S) TAG to CG AGF, 22 May 42, sub: Responsibility for Amph Tng. AG 353 Amph Tng MT-C." ? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Would this work: According to Marshall Becker, the Army Ground Forces was given responsibility for amphibious warfare doctrine, training, and "all phases of the operations of Army units..."? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Y Removed the quotation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• in the 4th Engineer Special Brigade section, suggest adding a subheading above the organisational structure, similar to the other brigades

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• the following terms are overlinked: 3rd Infantry Division (United States), 9th Infantry Division (United States), Camp Carrabelle, Fort Lewis, Oro Bay, Invasion of Lingayen Gulf, Camp Gordon Johnston, William M. Hoge

  Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• the sources cited seem
  reliable
  , although I wasn't sure about the following (are you able to confirm what makes these reliable?):
  • http://ebsr.net/3rdESB.htm

    This is the veteran's organisation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it is citing, it might be ok -- simple orbat stuff, no interpretation -- but given that they don't seem to cite their sources, I think it will get questioned at ACR or FAC, unfortunately, and would be best replaced if possible. That said, you might be able to draw on the fact that one of those involved in the page is Ralph Denlinger, who appears to have published a book Put 'Em Across per [2][3], and also The Jetty per [4] (although that work is self published). Having said this, I'd suggest that you could replace the ref with the editor's note on p. 140 for Vol IV of Casey, which mentions the following units: 533d EBSR, 543d EBSR, 593d EBSR, 563d EBMB, 163d Ord Maint Co, 198th QM Gasoline Sup Co, 693d QM Trk Co, 263d Med Bn, 288 Sig Co, HQ and HQ Coy: [5]. It would mean deleting a couple of the more minor units, but they probably wouldn't be that much of a loss, IMO. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't need it for the OrBat; replaced that; it is only required for the train trip to California. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, thanks - the remaining citation should be ok, given what it is citing. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/2eng-bde.htm

    News site. Used widely on Wikipedia. (Google says 38,000 pages but I find that hard to believe.) Has its own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough, should be ok for this review, although I have certainly seen concerns about it in the past on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285 it seems to have been discussed a bit, but currently it seems there is no consensus about whether it is an RS or not. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "Distinctly Web 1.0 in appearance" Because nothing says trustworthy more than CSS and HTML5. That's why we put our faith in USA Today and not the Washington Post. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • http://www.6thcorpscombatengineers.com/540th.htm

    I have removed this one, as it is no longer required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 87th Engineer Heavy Ponton Battalion --> "Pontoon"?

  N "Ponton" is the American spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2nd Engineer Special Brigade trained at Cairns with the Australian 9th Division --> indicative date for this?

  Y June and July 1943. Actually, the 9th Division trained a brigade at a time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It moved to Fort Worden, Washington -- date for this?

  No date available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gullatt was hospitalized in July 1944 --> do we know why he was hospitalised?

  Y Source says "due to illness". Added that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• brigade lost its commander, Colonel Paul W. Thompson, on D-Day --> do we know what caused this? Was he killed in action?

  Y Source says "seriously wounded". Added that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• is this missing something: were scaled back on 1 July from twelve to eight -- twelve to eight X? (divisions?)

  Y Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Voluntary enlistment in the Navy of men aged 18 to 37 ended on 5 December 1942 -- sorry, not sure I understand this. Do you mean that the no one was allowed to voluntarily enlist? That doesn't sound right, though. Do you mean that the Navy began accepting draftees from this age range at that time, as well as volunteers? If so, I'd suggest something like this: "After 5 December 1942, the Navy began accepting male draftees aged 18 to 37..."

  It is right though. Voluntary enlistment of men in that age bracket was ended, and the only source of them became draftees. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that clears that up, although I am surprised to learn that. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OCLC for the Beck source?

  What about it? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, not sure sorry; I had something in mind when I noted it, but it eludes me now -- I think I had too much coffee yesterday. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• the images seem appropriately licenced (no action required)

  Phew. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

1. Well written: Y

a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: Y

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

c. it contains no original research; and

d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: Y

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.