Talk:13th Airborne Division (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 13th Airborne Division (United States) article.
Article policies
Good article 13th Airborne Division (United States) has been listed as one of the History good articles 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 reassessment.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Skinny87
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

The 13th Division was one of the "Ghost Divisions" created prior to the Normandy Invasion. It was created out of green US recruits and recovering veterans and was designed to throw off Nazi spies and saboteurs. Recently disgraced General George Patton was designated as their Corps commander in a bid to make them seem like more of a threat. 70.194.23.103 14:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Safekeeping

Copy and pasting this information into the talkpage for safekeeping whilst I update the article in the coming weeks:

Although assigned to the First Allied Airborne Army in Europe, the division as a whole was not committed to action in the European theater. The division continued its training in France and was alerted for several operations, but these did not materialize. One of its elements, the 517th Parachute Infantry Regiment, which was assigned to the division on March 1, 1945, had previously seen combat in Italy, Southern France, and in the Ardennes. The division returned to the United States in August 1945 for redeployment to the Pacific, but the end of the war precluded its use in combat in that theater. It was inactivated on February 25, 1946.

Units of the 13th Airborne Division included:

  • 88th Glider Infantry Regiment (disbanded 1 March 1945, assets to the 326GIR)
  • 189th Glider Infantry Regiment (disbanded 4-8 December 1943, replaced by 88GIR and 326GIR)
  • 190th Glider Infantry Regiment (disbanded 4-8 December 1943, replaced by 88GIR and 326GIR)
  • 326th Glider Infantry Regiment
  • 513th Parachute Infantry Regiment (relieved 10 March 1944 by 515PIR)
  • 515th Parachute Infantry Regiment (assigned 10 March 1944; replaced the 513PIR)
  • 517th Parachute Infantry Regiment, (assigned 1 March 1945)
  • HHB, Division Artillery
    • 458th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion (75mm)
    • 460th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion (75mm) (assigned 22 February 1945)
    • 676th Glider Field Artillery Battalion (75mm)
    • 677th Glider Field Artillery Battalion (75mm)
  • 129th Airborne Engineer Battalion
  • 153rd Airborne Antiaircraft Battalion
  • 222nd Airborne Medical Company
  • 13th Parachute Maintenance Company
  • Headquarters Special Troops
    • Headquarters Company, 13th Airborne Division
    • Military Police Platoon
    • 713th Airborne Ordnance Maintenance Company
    • 513th Airborne Signal Company
    • 409th Airborne Quartermaster Company

Source: US Army Center of Military History [1]


[edit] References

  1. The Army Almanac: A Book of Facts Concerning the Army of the United States. Combat Chronicle: 13th Airborne Division. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1950.

[edit] A question about the 517th

The article states that the 13th wasn't used during the Bulge, but elements of the 517th did participate in the battle. The statement is sourced, so I didn't want to alter it until a conclusion was reached about whether the statement should be amended or something. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. If you wouldn't mind giving me a couple of days to look into it, as I have an exam tomorrow, I should be able to correct it. Skinny87 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine by me, take your time. I read over the article, and tweaked a couple of pretty minor things, but overall, I'd say it's pretty solid prose, and everything seems to be sourced pretty well. Good work :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't looked in my books yet, specifically Flanagan, but I get the feeling that the wiki article on the 517th might be in error - they fought in Italy and Southern France, and I believe they got their Presidential Citation in Italy. However, I could indeed be wrong, so I'll find out, hopefully tomorrow. Skinny87 (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can tell you that they did fight at the Bulge, my fiancee's grandfather was a member of the 517th from the start of the unit, and he's told me some of his stories from the war. The 1st BN of the 517th in fact won the PUC during their operation around Hotton and Soy. Ahh, I think I just stumbled onto the issue here. 1st BN was temporarily ad hoc-ed to 3rd Armored for their participation in the Bulge, so technically, they weren't still part of the 13th ABN. That seems to sort things out. Parsecboy (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It does indeed, I found the same thing out last night! I'll add it in with a reference when I have a sec.Skinny87 (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Done! Hopefully that should make sense now I reworded it! Skinny87 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, good work. Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA-On Hold

Just one thing before I pass this article-the Formation section could definately be expanded, and with expansion, more thoroughly sourced. Fix this, and I will be happy to pass. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 02:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is nothing more I can find on the formation of the unit - an airborne unit which never made a combat jump and which never even fought never merits much more than a passing mention in the books I'm afraid. I believe the section is roughly the same size as that of the 17th Airborne Division article, which was passed by yourself for GA Status! Skinny87 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: I added an extra reference to the section to shore up the references, but I just can't find anything new really. Only Flanagan and Devlin even cover the division in any detail, and only Flanagan gives details of which units were originally in the division and who originally commanded it. Skinny87 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to agree with RedMark that the article could (and should) be more thoroughly sourced.

Oh yeah, and RedMark, let's not pass this thing 'till we've agreed on whether or not it's GA (just to avoid confusion & conflict). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

1. Well written?: Pass
No objections here.
2. Factually accurate?: Fail
Although generally well-cited, I feel that several sections warrant some more citations. However, this isn't an extremely serious issue, just one to note.
Which sections do you think need citations? I'll try and find them. Skinny87 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?: Minor Fail
Although the coverage of their actions during WWII is very thorough, I feel that "Formation" and "Deactivation" could warrant a bit of expansion (this might even take the form of simply elaborating on why General Griner was replaced by General Chapman).
I'll try and find something, but if I can't, will that ultimately fail the article? Skinny87 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Argh! I've scoured all my books and the internet, and I can't find anything else on the activation or deactivation of the division. I don't know what to do! Skinny87 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
Wide Variety of sources used, no evidence of bias or advocacy. No objections here.
5. Article stability? Pass
No evidence of edit-warring or mass-editing. No objections.
6. Images?: Pass & Comment
Although GAN's can't fail based on images, I do feel that some images are warranted. If you are able to locate images of divisional troops or something (combat photos, headquarters, something like that), it would only add to the quality of the article.
I'd love to upload images, but I still have no idea how to upload in terms of copyright, so I don't think I'll be able to add any at the moment. Skinny87 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


As such, I agree with RedMark's assessment of "on hold". Contact me on my talk page if you need any further assistance and/or clarification. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your questions

1: I think the main issue with no citations falls in the lead-section (at least primarily).

I didn't think the leadrequired citations, but if that's what is needed then I'll add them in immediately from Flanagan. Skinny87 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Skinny87 (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

2: Don't worry, I won't fail the article. I think some common sense needs to be applied when passing or failing articles. This article is very close to GA, and just needs those last few minor improvements.

Thanks, but I don't intend to take this to A-Class or above, as there simply isn't the information or pictures required for that quality. I simply aimed for GA-Class as I think that's as far as the article can get. Skinny87 (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

3: If you are incapable of locating any more information on the activation or deactivation of the article, I'll probably allow it to somewhat go by (although it will definitely come up in peer-reviews or A-Class Reviews).

I'll look again, but there's nothing on its deactivation, though I did manage to expand the Formation section by a few sentences. Skinny87 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Still can't find anything else on deactivation Skinny87 (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

4: As mentioned, images aren't required. I have no issues if you can't find the copyright terms or the images themselves. It isn't grounds for failing an article.

Hope that answers your questionsCheers! Cam (Chat) 19:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further Response

One more thing. As both a MoS note, as well as a technical note, it is recommended that you combine footnotes. You've got about a half-dozen "Huston, p. 140" footnotes. I'd combine these into a single footnote with the "a", "b", etc. format. I'll see if I can contact EnigmaMcmxc to have a go at it (as that is HIS area of MoS). In the meantime, everything else is lookin' good (once that combining footnotes thing is done, we should be ready to pass this beast). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be taken care of; the rest are different enough to warrant them remaining separate entries. Parsecboy (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Huzzah! Thanks for all the help everyone! Skinny87 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I don't think this article will ever get past GA-Status due to the lack of any more information to be added to the article. However, I do hope to eventually add pictures to it. Thanks again for all the help, and I can't wait to see it passed as GA. Skinny87 (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so quick to write it off; A and FA class articles don't necessarily have to be long; take USS Kentucky (BB-66) for example, the ship was never even completed. It's barely 17.75kb, a significant portion of which is comprised of the infobox and sources/footnotes. Remember, it's about quality, not quantity. Parsecboy (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, don't give up that easily. Some of the really-good FA's are actually really short, they just cite the hell out of themselves and have excellent writing. Now that Enigma's done the footnote formats, GA Passed. Excellent Work (once again)! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That was me that did the footnotes, but no biggie. Good work again, Skinny! Parsecboy (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)