Talk:29th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Progression
[edit]- Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
- Version of the article when review was closed: [2]
Technical review
[edit]- Disambiguations: None found. [3]
- Linkrot: Ext links all work. [4]
- Alt text: all text present. [5]
- No action required.
- No action required.
Criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose):
please check the abbreviation used for Corporal in the Battle of Antietam section. You have used "Corp.", but at least in my experience the correct abbreviation should be "Cpl";
Donein the Removal from the Irish Brigade section, I suggest rewording this clause: "honoring their role as "honorary Irishmen"..." (repeated word honor is the issue); Done- In some places I found the language a little awkward, but I don't think it is a enough to hold the article back from GA. I made a few tweaks, but I'd suggest, however, making a request at the Guild of Copy Editors to have someone take a look over the article prior to pursuing an A class review or an FA review.
Is there an article on the Medal of Honor recipients? If they exist, you should link to them (I've linked a couple I could find); Donethere are a couple of citations that should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS, e.g. Bowen, 435; Bowen, 451; and Bowen, 448; Done
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
There are a few sentences/paragraphs that have not been cited. I have marked them with the citation needed tags. If citations can be added in these locations, this criteria would be met. Done
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
- I've made a few edits in order to tweak some minor points. Please check that you agree with them.
There are just a couple of points that I feel need to be addressed prior to passing for GA status.- Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the {{Done}} tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your review and for your improvements to the article. I appreciate your time on this. I think I've addressed your concerns as outlined above. In particular, I created new pages for those two Medal of Honor winners who did not previously have pages and linked them. Also, I added citations where needed. Let me know if I haven't adequately covered any of your concerns. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good, well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)