Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)/Archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)[edit]

This article has improved dramatically over the past few days. I am looking to get it promoted to GA status, and FA from there. I was looking for input on any ways the article can be improved before submitting the article for promotion. -Ed! (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no one can find anything that needs doing, I'll just go ahead and nominate it...-Ed! (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68[edit]

Nice article, but I have a few suggestions:

  • Expand the intro to two or three paragraphs that summarize the entire article.  Done
  • Add an "Organization" section before the "History" section to describe how the unit is organized.  Done
  • Try not to have one paragraph sections, it makes the article look choppy. Expand the sections or combine them.  Done
  • The "Popular culture" section will look less like a trivia section if renamed "Legacy" and then written in paragraph style instead of bullett style.  Done
  • If you're thinking of nominating the article for featured, I think the footnotes need to be more formal, with authornames, sources, and dates included.  Done
  • A good example of a military unit article is 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines, which is featured.  Done

I hope this helps you with what is already an excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much for your help. I have taken your advice and made all of these improvements. -Ed! (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Perhaps others might also look to see if I missed anything. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06[edit]

At least in my browser, the organisation chart, oops, US article, excuse me, organization chart, overflows over some of the text, and there is a lineup of three 'edit' buttons in a row. Maybe rearranging the pictures and spaces might help? One other minor thing, references always go after commas or fullstops, not before them. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I don't fully understand what you mean by the text overflowing, as I don't seem to be having any problems of that kind on either of the browsers I have been using. Could you clarify? -Ed! (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Literally, in my browser, the organization chart covers some of the words in the text. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very late response to this, but the problem is due to infoboxes using right floats, and bugs in CSS implementation (not sure if bug is in CSS or in MediaWiki) that prevents right and left floats sitting alongside each other. I've made a small change that partially fixes the problem for my browser resolution, but is still not ideal (multiple 'edit' buttons are still there), but at least the org-chart isn't over-writing text any more Carre (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carre[edit]

If you're planning on taking this to FA, or even GA, you need to sort out MOS issues:

  • Dashes in date ranges (should be endashes (–).
  • Get rid of the bolding in the reference titles.
  • Consistency on date format in references - an English variant, suggest US format, or ISO, not the mix & match presently there.
  • External Links is turning into a link farm, and could do with trimming, plus be consistent in the format of those links (the last 2 being different to the previous ones).
  • You in-line citation placement isn't correct, and would be pulled up at either GAN or FAC – should be after punctuation, not before.
  • Standalone years should not be linked. Similarly, linking for full dates should be consistent (now that MOS allows you to not link them for autoformatting). There's a "April 1, 1974" in there, for example.
  • In "Reactivation and the War on Terror", you have this sentence "The brigade also participated in Operation Bayonet Lightning in 2003, capturing weapons and materials dangerous to coalition forces,[21] and" – "and" what?
  • Check your wikilinks – how many times is Vicenza linked? Italy? Vicenza, Italy? Basically, watch for overlinking (devalues good links), and look for good links that you haven't got yet. Carre (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/173rd_Airborne_Brigade_Combat_Team_(United_States)/Archive_1&oldid=256717348"