Talk:1st Armored Division Sustainment Brigade/GA1

GA Review

1. Well written?: Minor Fail Pass

Although the prose of the article is generally good (could benefit from a copyedit before going for A-Class though), there are a few minor MoS things that should probably be fixed. Of particular note:

*There is some inconsistency with regards to wikilinks & dates. Some of them are formatted as [[8 July]] [[1991]], for example, while others are formatted as [[8 July]], [[1991]], still others are formatted as [[8 July]][[1991]]. I've gone through & cleaned up a few of them, but it wouldn't hurt to do another thorough check of the article, for consistency's sake. Although all three are acceptable methods of formatting date wikilinks, I'd suggest sticking to one, rather than using all three interchangeably.

Dates have been standardized. I have had it up for a peer review for some time, and have acted on the little feedback that I recieved. I copyedited the page myself today and hopefully removed any other problems you may find. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 02:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Noticed one that was double-linked that I fixed ([[29 April 29]]). Looks good. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: Minor Fail Pass

Although generally well-cited, there are a few key bits that require a reference, yet don't have one:

*"After intense fighting in Hue, the division then moved to relieve US Marine Corps units besieged at the Khe Sanh combat base in Operation Pegasus through March of 1968" should have a citation.

• "This was a large scale search of areas under the jurisdiction of the US II Corps which saw 5,400 enemy killed and 2,000 captured" - Like most casualty statistics, should probably have a ref.

Clean those two things up & we'll be fine on this category.

Both issues fixed. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

Covers very broad time-period & history of the brigade, no objections.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

No evidence of bias or advocacy. No objections here.

5. Article stability? Pass

No evidence of mass edit-wars

6. Images?: Pass

Images are appropriately tagged, well-used, & do not violate copyright laws. No objections here.

As such, I have placed the article On-Hold. As soon as those changes have been made, this article will be GA-Class. If you need assistance or clarification, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk-page. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Have I addressed these issues to your satisfaction? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Everything looks good. Passing GA....Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)