Talk:130th Engineer Brigade (United States)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
There are quite a few redlinks. How likely is it that they will get articles?

Removed redlinks for the least likely articles. A few are likely to be written so I left them, though. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 03:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead could stand to be expanded a bit. Not in number of paragraphs, but in bulking up the paragraphs that are already there.

Done Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 03:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In both the lead and the "Reactivation in Hawaii" section, could you please wikilink, explain or reword what "casing the colors" means, please?

Removed the term from the lead and wikilinked/explained it better in the Reactivation section. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 03:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
For the Engineer Magazine refs that you are using, it would be best to have the author and article title for each article you are quoting, rather than just having the magazine title and page number.

Should each of the articles be added to the "Sources" section or should they just be fixed in each note? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 03:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say just fixed in each note. Dana boomer (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I'm still not 100% sure how to fix it. Which template would I use? {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, and {{citation}} all don't seem appropriate. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try {{cite journal}}. Use the title= field for the name of the article and the journal= field for the name of the publication. The other fields are the same (I think!). Dana boomer (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've sourced the first article (Refs 30, 31, 33, and 45)...does that look like the proper format? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Yes, the formatting looks proper. FWIW, if it were me, I would just combine all of the references to the same article and put "pages 4-7" or whatever the range is. However, if you really want to be that specific, then please go ahead :) The format is what I was looking for though, so full steam ahead! Dana boomer (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
There are a few things with prose/MOS and references that I would like to see addressed, so I am placing this article on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being so slow on this review...I've been extraordinarily busy in real life and have been unable to come in and fix the remaining issues. I respectfully request another day or two for keeping the GAN on hold, I will be able to fix it when I have some spare time. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may of course have another few days to work on this. You are usually one of the most prompt people on WP at replying to reviews, so I am more that willing to give you some leeway when you request it :) Just drop a note here when you're finished with the tweaks. Dana boomer (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finished at long last. Thank you for your paitence and I again apoligize for the delay! -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 04:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]