Talk:Joint Modernization Command

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brigade Modernization Command. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604013414/http://www.bctmod.army.mil/nie_focus/index.html to http://www.bctmod.army.mil/nie_focus/index.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Significant page issues

Seems to have been written by someone doing marketing for the JMC. This is apparent because there's almost no content on what they actually do and the whole thing is formatted like an Army press release—complete with their idiosyncratic Use of Capitalization, their iconic Three Word Initialisms (TWIs), the jargon-filled mission statements, the emphasis that yes, JMC is very competent and thanks for noticing, the reference list being titled "References, U.S. Army", the freedom from Wikipedia guidelines, and the overall lack of substance. RookWeaver (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

A couple years late but I totally agree. Absolutely chock full of buzzwords, and despite its formatting it seems impossible to read, just because of the repetitiveness of the content. Is there anything that should/could be done? Are there even any sources outside of DoD and Army press releases? And to that point, if there aren't, should this article even exist at all? JoeyDirigo (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)