Talk:173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 5, 2008 Good article nominee Listed March 6, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed March 25, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 5, 2008 WikiProject A-class review Approved May 4, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has passed an A-Class review. This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	Vietnam Portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Wasn't it involved in NEO? 2 Campaign Streamers 3 Peer review 4 GA on hold 4.1 Issues preventing promotion 5 Conflict of Interest

[edit] Wasn't it involved in NEO?

IIRC, after Marines covered a NEO in Liberia, at least some 173rd units went into the concurrent NEO in the Central African Republic. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you could find a source on that and add it, that would be great. I looked around for references to it and I didn't really see anything. -Ed! (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not finding it online, but there are a few places I want to look. There is, I'm almost certain, a detailed case study of the two concurrent NEOs in Dan Bolger's Death Ground, but my copy is in storage, somewhere in several 10x2x10 boxes of books.

It was Operation QUICK RESPONSE in May 1996, overlapping Operation ASSURED RESPONSE (Liberia) starting in April. It's possible some 173rd units might have been in both. IIRC from Bolger, there was only a company or so available, with the rest in the Balkans. The Marines were trying to cover both places, and the eventual force included SEALs, Special Forces, and anybody else they could find. Again IIRC, they staged airlift through Freetown, Sierra Leone. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/assured_response.htm alludes to Army personnel, but doesn't specifically mention the 173rd.

Does their PAO have email? If not, I can check with a PAO friend, about to go to OCS after her broken ankle heals. She was enlisted Public Affairs in Iraq, so should know who to call.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That would definately be a good source...please do. -Ed! (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign Streamers

Does anyone know where high quality images of Campaign streamers can be found? I wanted to put in a chart for them similar to the one on the 3/3 page, but I can't find any that are very good or up to date. -Ed! (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/CampaignStreamers/CampaignStreamerInfoPage.htm - There are a lot of high quality images there. Hal06 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT. Guides recommend having greater than 3% words in links, but be sure not to overlink words just to add more links.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2KL, use 2 KL, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 KL.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]

Thanks, Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 18:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.

[edit] Issues preventing promotion

(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)

• Rhineland, Ardennes-Alsace, and Central Europe should link, in the infobox and in the text, to the campaigns, not the places.

Not yet done in the article itself, only in the infobox.

Y Done Changed them in the campaign streamers infobox, and changed the wording in the article to reflect location, not campaigns. -Ed! (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• In the "Vietnam War" section the images are straying across the text. This is a problem I've seen before on Battle of the Gebora, where I think it was solved using WP:BUNCH. Worth a look as the article is unreadable in placed for certain screen resolutions.

I may need some help fixing this, I have a wide large resolution monitor, and though others have complained about images bunching, I can't get the problem to appear on my computer at all and so I can't what this problem is doing at all (even the WP:BUNCH examples are just fine on all of the machines I use) Ed! (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm as clueless as you are on this. I suggest dropping a line at User:Carre's talk page, he fixed it last time and might be able to lend support.

I had a go at fixing this a while back - it's in the edit history somewhere; the bunching was much before I got to it. I've tried about all I could think of to get it better, and I think the best solution would be to slightly shift the images below the infobox. It's those that's causing the clash with the image to the left. I'm happy to have a go, if you like. Jacky – I take it you're at the same resolution as with the Gebora one? Cheers. Carré (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done – perfect at my resolution, and only a single line sentence thingie looking a little off-putting at the higher resolution. Carré (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• More description is needed of the units service in Vietnam - which campaigns did they serve in? Provide detail.

I'll expand on this, basically the campaign information is given up to 1967, but it is clear that the brigade was in Vietnam until 1970 at least - what happened in the last three years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Update the article with information about the last year's service in Afghanistan.
• References needed in second paragraph of legacy section. Y Done

In all, its a good article but more is needed on Vietnam service and the minor niggles I mentioned above have to be dealt with before I can pass this for GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It all looks reasonable, I'll get to work on this stuff. -Ed! (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, Updating on what's still needed, the 1968-1970 period in Vietnam is still not covered. Can you do anything to fill in this gap? Otherwise eveything looks great and I'll be happy to pass once the above is addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still working on that. The sources all seem to have a gap on the 1967-1970 history. Some of them have implied that the unit was rendered combat ineffective and was being rebuilt during this time, but I can't find anything very reliable. -Ed! (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.skysoldier.org/ops.php – seems they were still in Vietnam during this period. Not much detail though. The Sky Soldier site also lists a bunch of Medal of Honor recipients through these years. HTH Carré (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see this fixed before I promote, but I'm in no hurry to fail it while good work is going on. Take as much time as you need (within reason).--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How about now? It doesn't seem right using one source to fill that area in, but since only one is apparently avaliable, I put in all I could for the time, which apparently was not a very active one for the unit. -Ed! (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine. Good job and congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Couple of comments: you sure you used the right reference? You've used history.php, which doesn't seem to support the cited material. Did you mean to use ops.php? Second point is that you say they took part in four operations, but then only list 3. Carré (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest

One of the reasons for this article's failed FAC was that it relied heavily on COI material, because most of the information comes from US Army websites and press releases. What kind of sources exactly would not be COI? The Army sources are all reliable enough to me, but others seem to have a problem with them. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)