Talk:174th Infantry Brigade (United States)

174th Infantry Brigade (United States) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 4, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 174th Infantry Brigade (United States) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War / World War I / World War II / Cold War

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

United States: Military history Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Shoulder Patch

It should be noted that the 174th INF BDE now wears the shoulder patch of First U.S. Army. Shoulder Patch 174th INF BDE

BerkHolter (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:174th Infantry Brigade (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
This sentence, in the Organization section, ---> "and 3rd battalion, 309th Combat Support Regiment, headquartered at Syracuse, New York", needs to be fixed. In the Origins section, this sentence ---> "After the fall of Port Hudson it was severely engaged at Cox's plantation, under command of Maj. George Keating, losing 18 killed, 29 wounded and 7 missing, the heaviest loss sustained by any regiment in the action", needs to be re-written a little, for it to actually make sense.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
It wouldn't hurt much to link "Fort Drum, New York" in the Organization section. It would be a good idea to link full dates, per here. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here. In the WWII section, it would be best if "29 December" be "December 29", since that's how the article is going by. Same section, "23rd" change it to "January 23". Also, the dates really need to be formatted if the article is going by "the month and date".
Check, changes by me. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
It would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} format. In the Origins section, is there a source for this ---> "During the preliminary operations against Port Hudson, in the 3rd Brigade, Augur's division, 19th Corps, it skirmished on the Clinton plank road, was engaged at Plains store, and then took part in the long siege of Port Hudson, during which it sustained a loss of 14 killed, wounded, and missing"?
Half-check. The references still need to be used in the cite web format. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 00:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 07:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues taken care of. How does it look now? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 14:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Ed who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization Section

...3rd Battalion, 313th Logistics Support Battalion,[6] which are both headquartered at Fort Devens, New York

This should be "Devens, Massachusetts".

BerkHolter (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by BerkHolter (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname and other misc

The Brigade is not known as "The Away Brigade" the brigade is considered an "Away Brigade". This mean our mission is only accomplished at sites other than our home location. It is a description of the type of Brigade (Mission) and not a nickname.

Also the phrase "the brigade was mobilized" is slightly inaccurate. The brigade is Tri-Component which means there are Active Duty, Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers assigned to it. The brigades is active at all times, not mobilized for missions such as the one at Fort Dix. The BDE also has up to 50% of it's reservists (TPU's) on active duty at any given time on a rotational basis. To this end the brigade is "Down Range" conducting missions all the time. The brigade just returned from Camp Shelby (GA), Fort Irwin (CA) and Fort Bragg (NC). The BDE will be at Fort Stewart (GA) and Kuwait over the next year.

BerkHolter (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ammend the article as necessary but be sure to add sources for anything you say. The article needs verifiablility for all of the information. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]