Talk:3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines is currently featured on the United States Marine Corps portal as the Selected article. (1 March 2007)

	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.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article 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 review.

Please remove this article from GA status for the time being until the two sections with the expand tags can be updated. Really can't give it a serious look when the article has two big holes in it. It is well on its way but it is still too soon.--Looper5920 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm currently in this battalion. I'm trying to get my command to help me expand the article, especially the post-Vietnam section, but need to get at least GA status before I can talk to them. Palm_Dogg 04:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

As of [1], the article during this review, I failed this article for Good Article status, per WP:WIAGA. The article is not ready, there are still stub section messages. Please expand them. The lead is still too short. When the article is read, it can be renominated back. — Indon (reply) — 13:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA hold

This is on GA hold for 7 days for these reasons: 1) lead does not summarize article, it's more of a brief history that also jumps from WWII to modern era, then back to other things. Make it a summary of the key points of the article. Remove "has" from the first sentence, 2nd para. The one MOH is a detail, not a summary 2) footnotes are should show more info. See Scouting for good ref fmt, suggest cite fmt for refs. 3)need fn on first para of WWII section 4)the 4 items in refs are not in same format 5) why is official website not a ref? 6) Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to a separate page, like Gallery of 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines. 7) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. — ERcheck (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Addressed "has" and awards detail in #1, but still needs more concise intro. Moving official site to refs. — ERcheck (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Removed gallery. Will try and fix intro tomorrow. Palm_Dogg 10:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've had a go at the intro, removing "details". Still needs work, which I'm leaving to you Palm Dogg. I've been working the references. — ERcheck (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've completed reformatting the citations, but ran across a few possible discrepancies — which I've listed in the section below. Also, the citations were to websites and I didn't go back and add original access dates. (Palm Dogg, are you game to do this?) — ERcheck (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Much better! But, 1)first para WWII still has no ref, 2) first para 1991-2004 has no ref and it should as it list several details, 3) only a couple web refs have retrieve dates, you need consistency here. Fix these and I'll promote it.Rlevse 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. — ERcheck (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation questions

Citation question #1

The following citation:

• Otto J. Lehrack (2005). America’s Battalion: Marines in the First Gulf War. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. 

is used. However the actually points to a review of the book:

• Leo J. Daugherty III. "Review of Otto J. Lehrack, America’s Battalion: Marines in the First Gulf War". International Journal of Naval History. 

Is the citation for the book review or for the book itself?

• The citation was for the book, page 205. It was originally for the review, but I have since acquired the book. Palm_Dogg 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the url from this citation and added the page number. — ERcheck (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation question #2

Citation [13] is for:

• The 3d Marines in Desert Storm By Brigadier General John H. Admire, MARINE CORPS GAZETTE, September 1991

However, the url points to

• Command Chronology 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines Jan-Feb 1991. 3rd Marines.

Is this an error in URL, or is it something referred to in the above text?

— ERcheck (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's an error, but it looks like you've fixed it. Thanks. Palm_Dogg 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Since you meant the Admire article, I found the correct citation. It is not readily available online; only from the Gazette archives, which requires a paid membership. Here is the citation that I added:

BGen John H. Admire (August 1991). ""The 3d Marines in Desert Shield"". Marine Corps Gazette 75: 81-84. 

— ERcheck (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like all the citations, references, and external links have been made more specific, per reviewers suggestion above. — ERcheck (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)