Talk:174th Infantry Brigade (United States)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
This sentence, in the Organization section, ---> "and 3rd battalion, 309th Combat Support Regiment, headquartered at Syracuse, New York", needs to be fixed. In the Origins section, this sentence ---> "After the fall of Port Hudson it was severely engaged at Cox's plantation, under command of Maj. George Keating, losing 18 killed, 29 wounded and 7 missing, the heaviest loss sustained by any regiment in the action", needs to be re-written a little, for it to actually make sense.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
It wouldn't hurt much to link "Fort Drum, New York" in the Organization section. It would be a good idea to link full dates, per here. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here. In the WWII section, it would be best if "29 December" be "December 29", since that's how the article is going by. Same section, "23rd" change it to "January 23". Also, the dates really need to be formatted if the article is going by "the month and date".
Check, changes by me. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
It would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} format. In the Origins section, is there a source for this ---> "During the preliminary operations against Port Hudson, in the 3rd Brigade, Augur's division, 19th Corps, it skirmished on the Clinton plank road, was engaged at Plains store, and then took part in the long siege of Port Hudson, during which it sustained a loss of 14 killed, wounded, and missing"?
Half-check. The references still need to be used in the cite web format. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 00:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 07:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues taken care of. How does it look now? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 14:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Ed who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]