Talk:IX Corps (United States)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:IX Corps (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I fixed the two dab links - please change if I picked the wrong article :)

   • Looks good to me. —Ed!^(talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   • Lead, "It is best known for the conduct as a senior command". What?

   • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   • Lead. The first sentence of the third paragraph is a run-on, but I'm not sure where the best place to split it would be (or else I would have done it myself...).

   • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   • Inconsistent punctuation of U.N. vs UN. Standardize please. (I think the correct way is "UN", but I'm not sure on this.)

   • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   • Chinese intervention, "The corps were to advance steadily northward, protected by heavy artillery and close air support, until they captured Seoul.[25] The corps was". You're talking about multiple corps, then switch to talking about one unnamed corps. Also, before when talking about an individual corps, "corps" was capitalized, now it's not.

   • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   • Chinese Intervention - should this be "Chinese intervention"? (capitalization)

   • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   • Stalemate, "against the hilly regions around the "Iron Triangle" region". Regions, region.

   • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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):

   • File:Sto1001.jpg in the Occupation section has several deletion nominations that were never finished. Please check these out.

   • I don't know what to make of those discussions, so I am just removing the image for now until they are resolved. —Ed!^(talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

For the most part it looks good, just a few tweaks that need to be made. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think all of your concerns have been addressed. Thank you for your thorough review. —Ed!^(talk) 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Publication dates

Hi Ed! I noticed that in the article you cite The Pacific War Companion: from Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima, and list it as published in 2005. However, in the harvard citation, you say 2006.The ASIN you link gives the publication date as 2009. So which, if any, is it? Also, Worldcat says this book wasn't published until 2007 and that there wasn't a 2009 edition. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)