Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

This article achieved FA status about three years ago. I recently nominated it for the Main Page and got hit by a barrage of complaints, so I'm sending it here for a "tune-up". Comments, criticisms, and the like are welcome and appreciated. Palm_Dogg (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

Hi, I have a few comments, but nothing major. I've had a bit of a look at the TFA request and frankly I have to disagree with some of it. The removal of the "History" section header, I think, goes against the standard structure of most unit articles I've seen, but I don't have any TFA request experience, so maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, here are my comments, please do with them what you wish:

the asterisks in the Engagements section of the infobox could be wikified so they appear as in this article: No. 3 Commando;
date ranges in the infobox should have spaced endashes per WP:DASH;
(not sure of this point), but suspect that left aligned images shouldn't come after level 2 headers ;
I think that the article probably has too many images, I suggest removing some (particularly the unit patches) as they are linked through the Commons portal at the bottom of the article anyway;
is the article correctly titled? (I'm not sure, but suspect it would be better to name it 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment as wouldn't that be it's official name);
there is some inconsitency in terminology. In the Early Cold War seciton you use the term "Third Battalion", but mostly elsewhere you use "3rd Battalion";
per the WP:MOS numbers 10 or greater should usually use numerals, while those less than 10 should be spelt; one example where this is not followed is in the Cold War section ("During the exercise, Third Battalion...over sixty helicopters" (sixty should be expressed as 60);
in the last paragraph of World War II seciton, the claim that a member of the battalion was the last American killed during World War II perhaps needs to be reworded or clarified. The date is stated as December 14, 1945, but the war was officially over a couple of months before this, so it was after World War II, surely?
suggest renaming the World War II, Bougainville, and Guam (1942-1945) section to just "World War II (1942-45)" as the current config implies somehow that World War II, Bougainville and Guam are separate conflicts;
given that the "History" section heading has been removed, perhaps the structure could be improved by including a few level 3 headings in the World War II seciton (possibly Formation, Bougainville and Guam);
the last part o3rd Battalion 3rd Marines (3/3)f the third paragraph in World War II section appears uncited (beginning, "After Bougainville, 3/3 conducted numerous training...");
in the World War II section, Warren in USS Warren should be italicised as it is a ship name;
in the Early Cold War section, Bayfield in USS Bayfield should be italicised as it is a ship name;
the last part of the first paragraph in the Vietnam War seciton appears to be uncited;
the second paragraph in the Vietnam War section needs a citation (beginning with "The battalion's first major operation...);
the fourth paragraph in the Vietnam War section (beginning with "3/3 did not see major action...") needs a citation;
in the last paragraph of the Vietnam section you have "1600" (as in days) and then "2,800". A comma should be added to 1600 to be consistent in style for numbers over a thousand;
terms like Medal of Honor have been linked numerous times; usually they should only be linked sparingly;
in the Gulf War section, the last part of the second paragraph appears to be uncited;
in the Gulf War section, the caption for the Khafji image has curly quotation marks for "Cleaning up Khafji", but under the Manual of Style they should be straight;
in the Afghan and Iraq Wars section, "Victory Circle" has curly quotation marks, but as per above, they should be straight;
what exactly is the "3/3 Battalion Command Chronology" source listed in Notes 29, 31-34, etc? Is it a source that is internal to the organisation, or is it available for readers to view and verify?
I suggest separating the citations that provide references (e.g Author date page etc) and those that clarify points (e.g. Note # 1, 5 etc.). You could make your clarification points "Footnotes" and references could be "Citations", that way it is clearer to the reader which has a clarification point and which has a source. For an example of an article with this, please see No. 3 Commando;
Note # 3 requires publisher information
Note # 45 needs publisher and accessdate information;
the References section format is inconsistent, the Huddleston source has surname first, but Lehrack source has first name first;

Anyway, that is it from me. I hope this helps. Thanks for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think I got most of them. Still need to work on the Vietnam section, though. Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney

The info box is uncited
- Comment - What exactly needs to be cited? I think I addressed most of your other concerns. Palm_Dogg (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Brit 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines (3/3) I am not sure of the terminology but I have always heard it spoken as 3rd of the 3rd so should it not be 3rd Battalion 3rd Marine Regiment (3rd of the 3rd)' ?
- Comment - That's not how we do it across the pond. "3/3" is the standard USMC shorthand. Palm_Dogg (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the notable commanders in the inf box do not have articles. Are they really notable if so red links or create articles for them of remove them from the inf box.
Agree with above some of the images are taking over the article.
During the Battle of Iwo Jima, 3rd Battalion, as part of 3rd Marines, was kept offshore as the Expeditionary Troops reserve. However, despite numerous requests from other Marine officers, the 3rd Marines spent its time at Iwo Jima sitting in its transport ships. On March 5, 1945, the 3rd Marines were ordered to return to Guam

That's all for now but I will return later - Would it not be better to say they were not involved but kept in reserve if they need to be mentioned at all as part of the force.

Comment - Iwo Jima is tricky because the battalion did not actually participate in the battle, but was awarded a campaign star for its involvement as the reserve force. Palm_Dogg (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of consistency some times we see 3/3 did not see major action other times its In early 1969, 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]