Talk:189th Infantry Brigade (United States)

189th Infantry Brigade (United States) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 12, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 189th Infantry Brigade (United States) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: North America / United States / World War II / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

United States: Military history Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Pre-GA Review Notes

Good article, but in the WWII section, 'THe troop fought with the Division through northern France, and eventually Germany capturing town after town until the end of the war.' isn't exactly a great amount of detail or even encyclopaedic. Please add some actual details of what the Brigade did; just some facts from the Combat Chronicle would be enough. Skinny87 (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure what exactly to add. The combat chronicle for the 95th Infantry Division details at a few points that some of the units did one thing and some did another. I'll add as much as I can, though. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:189th Infantry Brigade (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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:
In the Organization section, you might want to explain what "Headquarters and Headquarters Company" is. I mean, I know what it is, but how 'bout your reader. In the Reactivation section, this sentence ---> "The brigade prepares other units for mobilization, trains, assists, and supports them during pre-deployment exercises", "trains" do you mean like in "training"? If so, I would change it. Same section, "All members of the PRTs hae assembled for the training", something is very odd.
"The Headquarters and Headquarters Company of the brigade is located at Fort Bragg, and acts as the command element for the formation, overseeing all subordinate brigades which are also located at the Fort." for clarification. Everything else, Fixed -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 17:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Dates need to be unlinked, per here. Throughout the article, link "Fort Bragg", "War in Afghanistan", "COL", "CSM", "Mechanized", and "public affairs" to their correspondence articles. The article tends to have red links, if they don't link to anything, it would be best to unlink them, per here. In the World War II section, the link "Company", do you mean it to the organization link or the military one? Same section, you might want to link "Stillwater, Oklahoma" once, per here. In the Reactivation section, it would be best if "Provincial Reconstruction Team" was followed by ---> (PRT), I mean, I know what it means, but how 'bout your reader. Same section, "In Fall of 2008", with seasons differing in different part of the world, a different wording than autumn or fall should be picked, per here. Same thing with the "spring" mention.
Fixed
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:12, 12 December 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:
The link in Reference 13 shouldn't be in all capitals, per here.
Fixed
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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):

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!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Ed for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]