Talk:2nd Battalion 9th Marines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
2nd Battalion 9th Marines (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
 |
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. | ||||
|
More information...
|
|||||
|
Related task forces...
|
|||||
 |
2nd Battalion 9th Marines was featured on the United States Marine Corps portal as the Selected article. (1 September 2006 - 9 October 2006) |
[edit] GA Nom comments
I've dropped by and reviewed the article. Nicely done! Informative, thorough and understandable by a civvy like me. 8-) There are, however, no references in the article. We need to know where the information came from and where we can go for more info. Please at least include a bibliography section, or, better, inline notes. I've marked the article pending to give you time to do this, rather than failing it outright. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that the inline references have now been taken care of. Tony the Marine 01:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Passed
Congratulations! This is now a Good Article listing. To improve it on the road to FA, take a look at WP:LEAD. Ideally, the lead should summarize the rest of the article. Also, have someone with a rep for high quality writing work a little on the style. It is readable as is, but they are a bear at FA. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reason for the revert
The reason for the revert is that the compostion of the 2/9's Battailon is essential to the article since the composition of a Marine Corps Battalion differs from that of the Army or of some other country. This article has passed a review by many editors some of which recommended the Battalion composition. As such the article was promoted to a GA Status. There is no need to delete informative information from an artilce. Tony the Marine 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- All I removed was the explanation of what H&S and infantry companies do, those are self-explanatory (or at least to the extent of the prose I deleted) and not vastly different from the Army; the battalion composition remains. The deleted text is
- H&S Company (Headquarters & Service Company) was made up of multiple sections that supported the remainder of the battalion with a variety of service support functions.
- The infantry companies were composed of Marines who fought primarily on foot with small arms in organized military units.
- Also, I notice that the Good Article version (linked above) mentioned a weapons company; but it was since removed (not by me). Was there a weapons company in 2/9?--Mmx1 16:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, however we owe ourselves to the common laymen who does not understand what these units do and thereby, by providing a small explaination the section becomes informative. Tony the Marine 16:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm all for more explanatory material, but I don't think the removed text does so, above and beyond what the company names already specify. For example, if the weapons company is a part, it would be helpful to explain what "weapons" it provided, and similarly the H&S could do with an explanation of the services it provides. These are definitions specific to the function of Marine units. However, I think it's a fair presumption to make that someone who made it past the intro and is reading the body of this article should know what infantry is; if not, I wikilinked "infantry" in the first sentence in the intro. It is, incidentally, also wikilinked in this section. --Mmx1 16:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
