Talk:26th Infantry Division (United States)

26th Infantry Division (United States) was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 18, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
June 11, 2025	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 26th Infantry Division (United States) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Cape Cod and the Islands / Military history / Vermont Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Cape Cod and the Islands (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: North America / United States / World War I / World War II / Cold War

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

26th & 29th Divisions

The text reads: "Following the end of the Cold War, the Army began a process of downsizing its forces. The Army reactivated the 29th Infantry Division and began reorganizing its forces and further consolidating them. As a result, the Army decided to downsize the 26th Infantry Division into a brigade, and put it under the command of the 29th Infantry Division." The 29th was reactivated in 1985, not after the end of the Cold War, and its activation that year had no impact on the post-Cold War inactivation of the 26th that took place years later in the 1990s. These were two separate events.VilePig (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What led to the demise of the 26th was a situation largely of its own making. The 26th, as well as the 50th Armored Division in New Jersey and the 42d Infantry Division in New York, were woefully undermanned, as enlistment in the Guard was simply unattractive to so many. Even worse, to make their attendance statistics look better, units of all three divisions were submitting grossly inflated numbers, when in reality often only 10% of a unit's personnel were showing up for drills. Others hadn't been seen in years and were "ghosts." The Chief of the Army National Guard became aware of this situation and, having had enough, he consolidated the elements of the three divisions down to one. This was covered in the 1990s in an article in the Army Times.VilePig (talk)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:26th Infantry Division (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review posted shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
There are a lot of red links. Are all of these notable enough for their own articles?

I'm convinced they are. All of them are US Army Regiment or brigade articles, large organizations with a long precedence for their own articles. —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the unit's actions in World War I seems short compared the coverage of the same in World War II. Most of the World War I paragraph is spent discussing its formation and the post-war years, and very of it discussing the almost full year they spent in combat. Was there really nothing of interest to report?

I've had a difficult time finding info specific to the division, but I did expand the World War I narrative. —Ed!^(talk) 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europe section, "The division was then assigned to XX Corps.[9] The 26th then shifted". A lot of "then"s.

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See my comments on the WWI coverage in the prose/MOS section.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The memorial image in the Europe section is lacking a source.

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article, but there are a few issues with prose, MOS and coverage that should be dealt with before the article is of GA status. Also, one minor issue with an image. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have responded to all of your concerns. How does it look now? —Ed!^(talk) 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I'm passing this article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I am taking another look at it and noticed the following:

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, in the article.
The "World War II Memoirs" section seems to be an indescriminate list of external links. Perhaps this should be prose and moved to "Legacy"?

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

26th Infantry Division (United States)

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "World War II Memoirs" section seems to be an indiscriminate list of external links. Perhaps this should be prose and moved to "Legacy"? Globalsecurity (ref 12) is considered an unreliable source (WP:GLOBALSECURITY) and should be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.