Wikipedia

Talk:95th Infantry Division (United States)/GA1

< Talk:95th Infantry Division (United States)
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Dana boomer in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have a full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • The lead is slightly short for an article of this length. Perhaps add a couple more sentences summarizing the "Cold War" section?
    • In the lead, it refers to "One station unit training". What is the proper capitalization on this? In the linked article, they capitalize the first letter of every word. The lead has just the first letter of the first word capitalized, the Cold War section has nothing capitalized, and the Present day section has the first letter of the first word capitalized and a dash in between the first two words.
    • There are a lot of redlinks in this article. Are they all likely to get their own article at some point? Please de-link any that aren't likely to be notable enough to have their own article.
    • There are a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs in the article. Please either expand or combine most or all of these - they make the article look very choppy.
    • In the "Demobilization" section, it says "It was inactivated". Should this be "deactivated", or is "inactivated" the correct Army term?
    • This may be a stupid question, but does a Distinguished Unit Citation count as a unit decoration? Just wondering, because in the text it says they received a DUC, but in the honors section it says they never received an award from the Army.
      • A DUC is more like an award certificate, but I reserve the unit awards section for ribbons the division would earn, which it has none. The army awards many such award certificates for various things, all of which are far less notable than a ribbon for combat. —Ed!(talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • Please make the way you refer to dates consistent. Sometimes you have the format as "month day" and sometimes as "day month".
    • It may be interesting to include more information on the Medal of Honor winner from this division - even a brief synopsis of what he did/why he won it, or even which war he fought in. If you do not want to include this information, however, it's not something that will hold up the GA Review.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

A few issues with prose and MOS compliance, but overall a nice article. These things shouldn't take too long to fix up - I'm watchlisting this page, so please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fixed all of these issues. —Ed!(talk) 01:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Everything looks good, so I am now passing the article. I apologize for it taking a couple of days to finish up on this. Dana boomer (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:95th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)/GA1&oldid=1136314116"