Talk:1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States)/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

The article was listed as a Good article in 2009. From the history, I can see that the article has gone a through a lot of revisions, and unsourced content was added. Section 3 has only two citations, Sections 1, 2.5 & 2.4, don't have any citations. Section 2.8 is completely empty. Apart from the referencing issues, the MOS has also been compromised. I feel that that the article is no longer eligible to have the GA tag. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3 is the brigade's lineage- the single source is the Army's official lineage of the unit. I don't think that is a ding against the article. More to follow. 82redleg (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a section 2.5 or 2.8. What is MOS? I will cite section 1, it is easy to do. 82redleg (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is the Manual of Style for Wikipedia, 82redleg. However, the GA criteria only mentions some sections of the MOS as pertaining to GAs: lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. If Krishna Chaitanya Velaga has other MOS concerns, these should not affect the GA status; I'm sure they will let you know what they mean by sections 2.5 and 2.8 by giving you the actual section headers. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a picture that was of a soldier from another brigade (1st BCT was in Iraq in 2007, the picture was a 10th MTN soldier in Afghanistan, so likely 3rd BCT, and removed Korea and Desert Storm from the info box, since the BCT didn't participate in those operations. The 10th MTN website seems to be messed up, with some outdated info, so I will have to do some research to cite Section 1, the brigade's current composition. 82redleg (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help re-add sources if necessary. Just let me know what needs to be fixed at this point. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. Looking for an update, anything here I can fix? —Ed!^(talk) 19:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed!, since the others haven't responded, I took a quick look at the article. The obvious problems are that the Organization section, and the History's 1980s and last chunk of the Modular reorganization subsections are uncited, and the Operation Iraqi Freedom subsection is an incomplete sentence (and should be expanded) that is also uncited. Furthermore, the bulk of the Lineage and honors subsections are almost entirely unsourced. This all fails to meet the GA criteria regarding verifiability, as does source 11, which is a bare URL and needs to be filled in. Thanks for offering; best of luck in your search for sourcing. Someone might wish to go to WP:GOCER to request a copyedit—once the updates are done—from the Guild of Copy Editors, noting MOS concerns; these concerns will surely be addressed by a competent copyedit, even though none have been enumerated here. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! As original GA nom I'll get to reworking some of the stuff that has been changed since it was first passed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think I have addressed all issues in the article now. —Ed!^(talk) 01:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Are you happy with the article now? Can we close this? AIRcorn (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Thanks for the ping. Looks good, ready to be closed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]