Talk:188th Infantry Brigade (United States)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Other than misspelling Massachusetts in one place, no problem.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I find the WW2 combat history to be lacking. I would expect a more specific summary of the actions the unit was involved in (at minimum identifying those actions they played an important role in), or some explicit indication that such information is unavailable. (Considering I was able to find some histories specific to the 94th ID in WW2, I suspect more such info may be available.) The division's summary may be a good place to start, if there is enough detail in other sources that it can be further focused to this unit.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Nothing that prevents GA, in my opinion, but images from WW2 combat, if available, would add value.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'll put the review on hold to give some time for my issues to be addressed. Magic♪piano 19:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a significnt amount of history from a new source. How does it look now? —Ed!^(talk) 17:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved. I'll pass it, but you should consider trying to highlight the brigade's specific contribution. Magic♪piano 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]