Talk:Military beret/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 21:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will start this review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been nominated by an editor who has not significantly contributed to it. I haven't found any rules against this so I am going to proceed with the review.

One of the main issues of the article is the lack of detailed coverage of the military beret's history (Criterion 3a). For starters I would recommend merging the History section with the Camouflaged Berets History subsection. You can also draw ideas from the beret article. Ideally we should have a section that would define what a beret is, its history in a civilian setting and its early transition into military headgear. A second section about how it got popularized between World War I and the end of World War II. Followed by a section about its dissemination across the globe during the Cold War and its present status. This section should explain why they were adopted, whether there was opposition to their adoption and on what grounds. The article also makes no reference to their adoption by paramilitary groups.

The article also fails Criterion 3b. The By Country section is over bloated, it attempts to describe the use of military berets by every single country around the globe which is of little interest to the average reader. The United Kingdom and United States subsections are overtly detailed (see WP:WORLDVIEW and Criterion 4). What can be done instead is to substitute it with a section that describes the symbolism of each beret's color and highlights the differences in their shapes, sizes and how they are worn between different countries. This section can also describe elements of military traditions regarding the beret e.g. "earning the beret".

Another big problem with the article is its citation style (Criterion 2). There are references suffering from WP:LINKROT and also references that are permanent dead links. References 64 and 72 are essentially notes, they should be placed in a different section and be supported by reliable references themselves. A translation of the title of every source in a foreign language should be provided, the reference should also note which language it the source is written in. For books and academic journals (which should be preferred as WP:RS) we need author names, titles, page numbers, the name of the publisher as well as ISBN, OCLC or DOI. Not all books cited contain those.

Right now the article looks like a quick fail as it far from achieving even B class status. The nominator has a week to try and rewrite it.--Catlemur (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]