The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): RightCowLeftCoast (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this article has passed the GA Review, and has been peer reviewed prior to that process. Seeing as how Class A is has stricter requirements than a GAR, being elevated up to GA should assist in passing a Class A Review. It is the present POV of this editor that the references keep an appropriate style from reputable sources; that per the GAR the subject has been fairly presented, without bias; that there is a hierarchical heading structure, with a concise lead section; and is written in an articulate English, is clear, and withing style guidelines; and has appropriate images. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments This is a pretty good article, but I think that it needs a bit more work to reach A class:
  • The article doesn't explain what kind of unit this was and it's intended role. Was it a standard infantry regiment, or was it formed for special purposes? (for instance, to provide scouts and interpreters to other US Army units operating in the Philippines)
  • The lead doesn't need to contain references if the material is referenced in the body of the article
  • "Originally created as a battalion, it was declared a regiment on 13 July 1942" - was it actually of regimental size (3 battalions), or was this an honorific?
  • "Filipinos were strongly encouraged to volunteer for the regiment, and only those who did so were assigned to it." - it's unclear what this means, especially as Filipinos were also subject to conscription. What happened to Filipinos servicemen who didn't volunteer for this unit? - were they assigned to other combat units, or was this the only combat unit they were able to join?
  • "Formed in March 1942, the 1st Filipino Infantry Battalion was activated in April of the same year" - what's the difference between being 'formed' and 'activated'?
  • "Colonel Offley" - include his first name here
  • "Replacements from Hawaii, who were not allowed to enlist until 1943 due to the need for labor as argued by the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association" - this wording is a bit awkward
  • "The regiment would later be reassigned back to the 8th Army, along with the Americal Division" - when did this take place?
  • "Finally in the Philippines, the regiment conducted "mopping up" operations on the island" - which island?
  • The details of the regiment's combat history are very sketchy - can this be expanded? For instance, did the regiment fight as a single unit, or were its battalions separated? How many casualties did it suffer?
  • Was the regiment used appropriately? Its combat history seems unimpressive for a unit which had spent such a long time in training and was made up of what seem to be well motivated soldiers.
  • "By August 1945, operations came to a close" - you might want to note that this was because the war had concluded
  • "Many younger soldiers connected to a culture to which they had previously only had a distant relationship." - this is a bit unclear
  • the following website used to reference the article does not appear to be a reliable source: [1] Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply:
  • Per this reference "CAINF" the regiment was formed for "liberation of their former homeland". Otherwise, it was a regular infantry regiment.
    • That should be included in the article then
  • Most of the information in the lead is referenced elsewhere in the article, except for the segregated unit & California National Guard statements.
    • You can remove the other citations from the lead then - they look messy
  • On Battalion to Regiment unit change, it was due to size increase of the number of volunteers; how would you suggest this be integrated into the article?
    • Explain the regiment's structure (especially as this was more than the change of a name; it meant that the unit went from being one battalion to three battalions plus a headquarters and other odds and ends such as a cannon company). Did the regiment have any attached sub-units? (Shelby Stanton should cover this in his order of battle book)
  • It was suggested in the reviews that the statement of other Filipino American servicemembers, not within the regiment, is not required for the background context, so was removed. Would it be wrong to re-add that information, with its reference, which would go against the past reviews?
    • The current wording is confusing
  • The formed statement is a direct quote from the source, I believe what is actually meant is constituted per AR 220-5.
    • Please clarify this in the article
  • The question regarding COL Offley, do you mean within the article? It is already included in the infobox. Would you like this done as well for COL Hamby?
    • That would be good
  • The statement regarding HSPA, how would you propose that it be copy edited?
    • To active tense (eg, 'During its time at Oro Bay the regiment was reinforced with Filipino's from Hawaii. These men had not been able to enlist in the Army until 1943 as the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association had successfully argued that their labor was needed in the sugar industry'). This also poses the question of why the regiment needed to be reinforced before it saw combat - is this known? (I presume that it was due to some combination of disease and men being posted to other units).
  • I have added the month and year of the reassignment.
  • The islands where the "mopping up" occured is listed following the statement.
    • My comment was in relation to the use of "the island" without specifying what island this was.
  • As stated in the reply to the GAR, unfortunately, I could not find any additional references that detailed the combat history of the reference, just passing references for the most part.
    • OK, that's a shame. It is a serious limitation to the article though.
  • It can be inferred through the rejection of Australian & New Zealand units, and reduction of credit given to guerrilla units, by GA MacArthur that he wanted the United States Army to have the primary credit for the liberation. However, such inference maybe not keeping with neutral POV.
    • OK, fair enough
  • War concluded in September 1945, however major operations within the Philippine Islands were what concluded. Even after the war it can be said that the holdouts, with their small part, continued an unofficial conflict, not knowing that the war officially ended.
    • All the major fighting finished within hours of the Japanese decision to surrender mid-August 1945 (the western Allies obviously called off all offensive operations, and quickly began spreading the news to the Japanese units who were out of contact with the national government). The current wording generates a bit of confusion for no gain at all, in my view.
  • Would expanding on the statement not violate the GAR requirement of clear and concise?
    • I don't see why
  • Is an article posted by a chapter of the Disabled American Veterans organization not be considered a reliable source? I can change it over to another published source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have referred the DAV source to WP:RSN for review. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of 1 August there has been no reply to the thread created. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you think makes the website a reliable source? Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Second Round of Replies, part 1 (I will continue this when I get back from work):
  • I have expanded a sentence to include the statement from reference CAINF, see see change here.
  • I have removed the references in question from the lead, see changes here.
  • I unfortunately do not have access to the entire book Order of battle, U.S. Army, World War II. However, I have added it's structure per a unit publication, circa 1943. See change here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Second round of replies, part 2:
  • I have expanded the statement regarding non-regimental service of Filipino Americans; perhaps this makes this less confusing. Here is the change.
  • I have changed the wording from Formed to Constituted, with a note within the reference. See change here.
  • I have added the first names of the Colonels of the Regiment at least once in the article, outside the info box. See the change here.
  • Made copy edit as suggested. Expanded reason for need of reinforcement. See change here.
  • Changed "the island" to Leyte. See change here.
  • Copy edit of end of operations done. See change here.
  • I have expanded upon the younger soldiers renewed connection to the Filipino culture. See change here.
  • The DAV reference is a published source, an attachment to the Retired Activities Office Bulletin of July 2010. RAO are usually funded by the federal government, and can be found at many US Military bases as a resource to retirees (example), or areas were there were military bases (example). As such it is highly likely that it has been editorially reviewed by the publishing office prior to it being transmitted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What expertise do they have in this field? The author of the article isn't identified, and the article states that its source is 'Mil.com Jun 2010' - mil.com is a portal to US Department of Defence websites and contains no content. I've seen all sorts of inaccuracies in the newsletters of comparable Australian veterans organisations so they shouldn't be automatically considered reliable (they're generally written and edited by retired servicemen with no training in history and are focused on veterans' interests rather than history). The article contains some obvious inaccuracies (for instance, "Australia forces were scattered in Europe as well as throughout the Southwest Pacific" - given that Europe was entirely occupied by Germany this is obviously wrong, and the Australian Army's main fighting units were being transferred home from North Africa at the time, and MacArthur's headquarters was located in the most prestigious building in central Brisbane, not "Camp Tagrabalga, Beaudesert"). Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I can place this reference in further reading, and replace it with other more reliable sources?

Won't be able to do that today mind you, have to leave for work soon. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • FYI: There was no response at RSN regarding the DAV source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed the offending reference, see change here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentsSupport
  • No dabs [2] and images all have alt text [3] (no action required).
  • One external link reports as being dead [4].
  • The citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
  • The Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [5] (no action required).
  • You might consider mentioning World War II specifically in the lead, as this might improve the context of the article (suggestion only).
  • Grammatically I'm not sure about this phrase in the lead: "where it would first see combat as a unit." Perhaps "where it first saw combat as a unit."
  • This is a little repetitive: "The regiment consisted of three battalions, each consisting of a headquarters company", perhaps reword?
  • Use of the term "TO&E", although wikilinked, seems likely to confuse. Perhaps keep the wikilink but label it "establishment" or something similar the average reader might more easily understand.
  • The second paragraph in the "Deployment" section is a little repetitive. Specifically you overuse the term "the regiment", perhaps consider rewording a few instances of this. I have changed one paragraph as an example.
  • Inconsistency in use of "the regiment" and "the Regiment" throughout the article. As it is a proper noun (I think) I believe "the Regiment" is correct. Not 100% on this though...
  • "who had succeeded Colonel Offley as the regiment commander". "Colonel Offley" should just be "Offley" at second mention per WP:SURNAME.
  • Inconsistent presentation of the abbreviation for United States, in places you use "US" and in others "U.S.". IMO either is correct as long as it is consistently applied throughout the article.
  • The legacy section is a little repetitive, in that you overuse the term "activities". Perhaps reword a couple? Anotherclown (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference "27" to AR 220-5 has been repaired. See diff here.
    • Added mention of World War II directly in the lead, as suggested. See diff here.
    • Requested copy edit was made to the lead. See diff here.
    • Requested copy edit was made to the description of the units organization. See diff, and review to see if it the change was satisfactory.
    • Removed jargon. See diff, and review to see if the change was satisfactory.
    • Copy edit of Deployment section conducted. See diff here.
    • Made Regiment a Pro-noun, as suggested. See diff here.
    • Made change of regarding COL Offley per WP:SURNAME. See diff here.
    • Changed US to U.S. where possible; change not made within references, to be consistent with the cited reference. See diff here.
    • Only found two uses of the word activities. Changed one of them, as requested; see diff here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All issues have been resolved so I'm happy to support. Good work on an interesting and well written article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• Watch for capitalization errors in your cites. Review Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles. Examples include cites #36, 34, 61, 58. #34 has a problem with the author's name as well.
• Not at all sure that I like this combined format. It's very hard to locate a specific source, but that's not a factor in this review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references were not capitalized in the manor found at the referenced sources. I have made the following changes to match that particular MOS; see changes below:
    • 34
    • 36
    • 61
    • 58
      • Great, but those were only examples. What about the others? And you missed Kevin Starr's name in #34.
  • The reason for the combined format as it follows WP:CITEBUNDLE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know why you did it, and you're certainly entitled to do so; I just said that I didn't like it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason for the citebundling was due to a past Review suggestion that stated that multiple references to a single point within the article made certain sections difficult to read, therefore, the bundling occurred. Would you suggest that I do not bundle them, and include each as a separate reference?
      • Please let me know what references need to be worked on, that would assist in me improving this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that you need to change anything. I just found it a bit disconcerting and troublesome to use if I was already knowledgeable about this topic. Forex, if I'm reviewing a British destroyer article, I look for cites to Whitley, Lenton, Friedman, and English, in that rough order of their desirablility, to see if the editor's consulted the fundamental references on the ship. If not, then there's likely to be problems. Bundling things like this makes that strategy harder to do, but certainly not impossible. You should be fine at FAC, if that's where you're headed with this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I have gone through the references and found what I think are the capitalization errors, see the diff here. If you think there are others, please let me know. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • All good except for Kevin Snow's name, which still needs to be fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I have made additional changes here. I have also debundled references that are two or less; see changes here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Its just a suggestion but I think you should consider using short citations per WP:CITESHORT. Anotherclown (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oops, missed this earlier: Stanton needs a place of publication. Otherwise all good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have made the change to that citation, see diff here.

To use CITESHORT, would be a great deal of effort, and the present citation style is consistent with all the relevant sources available to potential readers. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about in the Further reading section?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One further reading, the reference gives a scanning location, but not a publishing location, is this what you want added?

The other one is a website, maintained by CMH; do you want the website publishers location added? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nothing more than a snippet is viewable, the google books link is worthless, which is why I generally never bother. So, yes, it needs a publisher location and you can delete the page #.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added locations as requested, see changes here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.