Talk:3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States)

Information about other brigades

This article is supposed to be about 3rd Brigade, 10th MTN, yet a fair amount of the text is about the development and deployment history of the other brigades in the division. That information should be posted on the 10th MTN division page, or on the appropriate brigade page. These brigades operate independently of one another, each brigade is on its own deployment cycle, and it's not appropriate to try and "fill" these articles with extraneous information. JCO312 (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. :: Red hyperlinks appear in article. Text is also overlapping images in the History section of article. Both need fixing.

   Removed the red links. I think I have also fixed the problem with the text, no further problem is showing up on my screen. —Ed!^(talk) 00:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

3. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

4. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

5. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

6. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

7. :: make sure disputes are resolved in editing of article.

   The discussion moved to my talk page, where the other user is no longer discussing the issue or editing the article, as far as I can see. —Ed!^(talk) 00:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

8. 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):

9. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well done on your GA pass. — Pr3st0n (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   I think I have responded to all of your points. Thank you for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 00:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a better lead to be a GA

See WP:Lead. Good job otherwise. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Expanded the lead. —Ed!^(talk) 11:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot better. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)