Talk:2nd Parachute Brigade (United Kingdom)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I'd suggest you split some of the longer paragraphs up a bit (the first para under the "Operations" header and the "Greece" section seemed overly long to me), but this isn't a "must" for GA. Done

   I have a question on the last paragraph - the bit about the 2nd being the only airborne formation in the Army is unclear to me, as the next sentence talks about other airborne formations being renumbered and merging. Should it be that the 2nd was the only brigade-sized or larger unit in the Army? Yes changed wording to brigade sized  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ParaData checks out, as it's run by the Airborne Forces Museum according to the credits

   I did a bit of digging (though by no means exhaustive digging) through 216parasigs.org.uk, and can't find anything on the authors. Can you point me in the right direction or give me some information on how they qualify as a RS?

   Its the old comrades association sit and I believe as such are considered reliable. However I have taken the small section out it should not effect a GA article IMHO.

   Alright, that will work. You might consider checking at the RS noticeboard for some expert opinion. For all intents and purposes, there are different "levels" of RSes, and this might satisfy the standards for GA (for instance, [navweaps.com] is generally considered reliable enough for B/GA, but it doesn't meet the "high quality" bit for FA. If the people there determine that 216parasigs is good enough, you can always re-insert the material. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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:

   Just a couple of small things to sort out, and this article is ready for GA. Excellent work as usual, Jim. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review all done I think. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, passing for GA now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)