Talk:7th Infantry Division (United States)/GA1

GA Review

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

I am currently undertaking the GA Review for this article. I will leave comments as they arise. For minor issues I will try to fix myself. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

There appears to be variation in the way in which the word 'division' is capitalised. In some cases it has been given a capital, and in other's it has not. My belief is that when it is being used as a proper noun, e.g The Division then fought..., that it should be capitalised. Having said this, I have had my work edited in the past for doing this. Nevertheless this is how we are taught to write in the Australian Defence Force (which doesn't of course make it correct in terms of Wikipedia guidelines). Anyway, please choose either to capitalise or not, and then I will be happy with this aspect.

Fixed I just used lower case letters for all the uses of "division" while sticking to capitol letters whenever it was properly identified as the "7th Infantry Division". -Ed!^(talk) 15:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some times the article uses a 'passive' voice, rather than an 'active' voice. It is hard to point my finger on, although I have tried to fix where necessary. I will read over it again later and see if anything jumps out at me.

Fixed I went through and got rid of all the passive voice that I could find. -Ed!^(talk) 18:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

I have placed a citation needed tag in the Active Component/Reserve component section as there was a paragraph without a citation. This will need to be added in, before I can check off the OR category.

As that graph was not added by me, and as I cannot find a verifiable source to back it up, I just removed it. It really didn't have a lot to do with the 7th Infantry Division, anyway. -Ed!^(talk) 15:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

I believe that this article discusses all of the major aspects relating to this topic, whilst remaining necessarily focused.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

I couldn't find any POV issues in this article.

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

There has been a lot of recent work done on this article, but none of it seems like edit warring to me. Most of the recent contributions have been made by one editor, so I am satisfied that it is a stable article.

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':

There are an appropriate amount of images, that are mostly of reasonable quality and they are all tagged and captioned.
I believe that may be a possible issue with the Attusnow image that possibly needs to be clarified. It is originally an AWM image, I believe that the AWM states that where its images are used, they have to display the AWM tag on the bottom right hand corner. This version appears to have been cropped to remove this. I am not an expert on this issue, however, but it might be something that comes up later. Having said this, it seems that this image has been on wikipedia for almost two years and has not been deleted so perhaps it is okay...

Okay, I've gotten the opinion of some other contributors and concensus seems to be that this photograph is okay for use. I have added some more details about its provenance on the image page, though so hopefully it should all be in order now.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

All the issues previously raised have now been fixed. I believe that this article now meets GA requirements and am promoting it because of this. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]