Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/13th Airborne Division (United States)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [1].

13th Airborne Division (United States)

Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has gone through a peer review, GA Review and A-Class Review, and I think it's ready to become an FA-Class article. It's part of an

JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Dead link Operation Varsity: The Last Airborne Deployment of World War II
• This link is used in footnote 25 and is also listed as an External link.

Otherwise links check out and sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed and deleted respectively! Skinny87 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs, pls review the dab issues identified by the dab finder in the tool box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy. I managed to fix one, but I can't find the other links that the disambig box is telling me are in the article. I fixed one Fort Bragg but the box says there's one more, and I don't know how to fix the 14th Division one as it's part of a template. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the other Fort Bragg dab; an easy way to find it is use the "find" tool (ctrl+f on a PC, probably "apple+f" on a Mac). The other problem with the 14th Division dab is that the division never actually existed; it was a phantom division, and likely won't ever have an article of its own. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The article is not correct about the division's intended deployment. It was scheduled to be shipped to the Philippines in January 1945. The Battle of the Bulge caused it to be rushed to Europe instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hawkeye. What source are you getting this from? None of my soirces state it was destined for the Phillipines. But if you tell me what source it is I'll have a look at it. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary documents of course! Try Ruppenthal, Vol. 2, p. 286

• "It was officially activated in August 1943" Meaning that the division received a training cadre from the 11th Airborne Division and 78th Infantry Division and a trainload of inductees direct from some reception centre with no military experience whatsoever. Other trainloads arrived over the next few weeks and months, until the division was largely filled, while officers attended various specialised training courses. Equipment trickled in. Training started in earnest when about two thirds of division equipment had been delivered. Most divisions were not fully equipped until alerted to move overseas. BUT
• "Between April 1943 and February 1945, the division remained in the United States" I think you mean August, not April!

• "but was not immediately shipped out to a combat theater, remaining in the United States as a reserve formation." NOT SO. The training cycle usually took about a year. It started with basic training for the inductees and then worked up to small unit and ultimately division manouvres. The 13th Airborne Division was not ready to be shipped overseas until September 1944.

• "Consequently the division did not take part in the first two large-scale airborne operations conducted by the Allies, Operation Husky and Operation Neptune,"

• It could not have possibly participated in Sicily, since it was not formed at this time, nor Normandy because it was not ready. In September 1944, the 13th Airborne Division was stripped of 1,652 enlisted men to provide reinforcements for the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. (See AGF Study No. 7) Since its total strength was only about 8,300, this represented about a third of its infantry strength, and required restarting the whole training process anew. As a result, it was not fully trained until January 1945.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a lot to take in Hawkeye, but I'll try and get it added into the article within a few days. Skinny87 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, everything but the Philippines bit is added in, Hawkeye. If you can add that I hope I've solved all the issues you have with the article. Skinny87 (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I don't know when Hawkeye will be back online, as I do know he had to go to the US recently and his time on wiki was sporadic, which is understandable; I'm hoping that any further reviwers won't take that the above fact hasn't been added in yet as a mark against the article. Hopefully it'll be added in as soon as possible; I'd do it myself but I don't have the book or any references in my own sources supporting that the division was destined for the Phillipines. Skinny87 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on this ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry Sandy, it's all done, dusted and solved. Knew I'd forgotten something! Skinny87 (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Good article considering that the 13th Airborne Division never saw combat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support —another well-written article from Skinny87, everything seems to be in order. Disclosure: I've done some minor work on the article, including minor copyediting, links, merging references, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• Okay, this is going to sound picky, but this is a US army article, so why is the spelling British? I see "U S Army Centre of Military History" in the refs, when it's properly "U S Army Center of Military History". Probably needs a double check for other spelling concerns.
• Another nitpick, why is it "Maj. Gen George W Griner.." Shouldn't it be "Major General George W. Griner"? (US habit is to put in the period after middle initials, plus why is the rank abbreviated?)
• Bit of overlinking also, no need to link New York City and Pacific.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth - I take your point on the British spellings and the period in Griner, and hopefully all British spellings should be gone now, but please highlight any more that need to be fixed. However, I've been told time and again in articles on American military formations that using 'Maj. Gen.' or 'Lieut. Gen.' is the way to go; I used to spell it out fully but got shouted down a few times. I hope it won't be a problem for it to remain that way. I've also dealt with the overlinking

I'd say that not everyone is going to know the abbreviations for military ranks, so it's probably wiser to spell out in full the first usage and give the abbreviation in ()'s for later usage, just like any other abbreviation in an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to change the first use of Major General in 'Formation' when I noticed it's spelt out in full and wikilinked in the lead. Is that okay, or should I expand its first use in 'Formation' as well? Skinny87 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah! Thanks very much! Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, that's great! Thanks Sandy! Skinny87 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.