Talk:IX Corps (United States)/GA1

GA Review

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

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)