This article just passed its GAN last week. I just wanted opinions about any improvements that should be made before an A-class review. I'm definitely going to expand on the Unit sections and probably add a few pictures. Outdawg (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the lead;

• The part that says: "charged with overseeing the various Special Operations Commands (SOC or SOCOM) of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines of the U.S. military." To improve flow maybe drop the "of the U.S. military" part and add a "United States" in front of Army, so it looks something like this: "charged with overseeing the various Special Operations Commands (SOC or SOCOM) of the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines." Also you could probably drop the "Marines" (as they're part of the Navy, sort of) if you wanted, that's not to say you have to, it really is your own personal preference.
• Might wanna add how USSOCOM is pronounced.
• Also an explanation of how the acronym USSOCOM was formed (lol I do know, but others might not), perhaps by using BOLD letters.
• Need a space after ref number [2] and [3]
• Find alternative words for "overt" and "clandestine", I don't know what they mean (not in this context at least), I'm not ashamed to admit it LOL. Oh and don't link them to wikitionary instead, the light blue link apparently ruins flow by drawing the readers attention.

Ryan4314 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article needs a bit of work before it's ready for an A-class review. My specific comments are:

• The article needs a copyedit to remove the military jargon (eg, "The command's SOF are composed of highly trained, rapidly deployable Airmen, conducting global special operations missions ranging from precision application of firepower, to infiltration, exfiltration, resupply and refueling of SOF operational elements" and "The MSOSG specifically provides combined arms planning and coordination, K-9 support, special operations communications support, combat service support (including logistics) and all-source intelligence fusion capability"). I'd suggest that all the brief descriptions of the main units within SOC need to be re-written, as they're not likely to be understood by non-specialist readers

•  Done Purple prose like "USASOC includes such fabled units as Special Forces (SF) and Rangers, and such relatively obscure ones as those involved in Psychological Operations (PSYOP) and Civil Affairs (CA). But no matter how famous or obscure they are, they all have one thing in common. They are the one of the Army's main weapons for waging unconventional warfare in an age when conventional conflicts have become increasingly rare." should also be re-written.
•  Doing... The history section does not cover the period between 1987 and 2001 or discuss the evolution of SOC as an organisation (eg, the raising and disbandment of elements, changes to reporting arrangements, funding issues, issues with attracting, equipping and training suitable personnel, etc)
• The coverage of the post 2001 operations needs to be re-written so that it's a comprehensive history rather than the current series of incidents
• The USMC's reluctance to raise specialist SOF units and assign them to SOC needs to be mentioned - from memory, the USMC until recently held a view that all of its infantry units could perform special forces missions and that assigning marines to SOC was undesirable as they would lose control over these elite units.
• The article does not presently mention the criticisms, from without and outside of the military, of the need for this command (which continued after it was established) and of its performance
• Too many of the references are military websites - these are not independent of the Command
•  Done The formatting of the descriptions of the units is unusual - I'd suggest that you include the descriptions of the units in the bulleted text Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]