Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Army/archive1

United States Army[edit]

This article has alot of information and I feel that with a bit of tweaking it could be a Featured Article. Any suggestions are welcomed! Cheers! --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a casual glance -- this article seems very listy, much of which ought to be expanded to prose paragraphs or moved to a different article. Tuf-Kat 06:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tremendously list-oriented. :) You might compare to the British Army article for example, which is a bit less list-oriented. But I know some of that can't be helped. Still an attractive table or two could be used instead.

The notable commanders at the top could easily be exapnded to at least a half dozen, I'd say.
I'd like it if the first section covered the history of the Army, with say a paragraph per major war.
The "Named Campaigns" section seems to over-emphasize the Revolutionary War and covers none of the others. That section seems like over-kill in it's current form and could be put on another page.
I'm not sure that it's such a good idea to have so many external links throughout the article. Those could be difficult to maintain.
The "Formations of the United States Army" could mention that this concerns the current Army only. Not historical formations.

Well that's all I had. I hope this was of some help. Thank you. — RJH 03:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro doesn't look good. Its so short that it leaves a massive gap between it and the table of contents. Tobyk777 05:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the subject deserves a longer introduction, probably three paragraphs. I recommend branching off the majority of the lists into daughter articles and concentrating on the narrative. There seems to be almost nothing about its history. That includes not just campaigns but peacetime operations and United Nations interventions. Include major organizational changes such as racial integration in 1948 and the changing roles of female servicemembers. How about special forces? Don't ask, don't tell? I'd like fewer red links and more line citations. Durova 23:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready for prime time. The article represents a lot of work, but it doesn't flow well, and has some deficiencies. Suggestions:

There should be at least two related articles, History of the United States Army, and Rank Structure and Insignias of the United States Army. Most of the pertinent material in the current article should be spun off into those related articles, and summarized in the main article. Histories of individual units should be covered in articles about those units.
There should be at least one picture of a Soldier; probably two, one showing both a man and woman in dress uniform, and another contemporary foto of troops in combat uniforms.
The sections Major Commands of the United States Army, Formations of the United States Army, US Units formed 1784 to 1821 etc, Structure of the U.S. Army and Organization all attempt to explain the structure of the Army, and together they're about as clear as a military phone book (notoriously easy for finding numbers if you're expert at the organizational structure). The article should should have a Ground Order of Battle, kept at the divisional level.
The article lacks any discussion of doctrine.
Likewise, Army culture and ethics.
The training section is a stub.
The article would be improved by a discussion of the people of the Army. There is no mention of Army government service civilians, nor of contractors who support the Army. The Army family is not mentioned. What are the demographics of our Soldiers? How long do they serve? What is the Army's recruitment goals and how well is it meeting them? The Army is a large organization of people; the article should cover the human aspect.

Tomcool 19:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]