Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom)/archive1

1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom)

13 articles

1st Parachute Brigade

1st Airlanding Brigade

2nd Parachute Brigade

4th Parachute Brigade

Operation Biting

Operation Freshman

Operation Turkey Buzzard

Contributor(s): Jim Sweeney, Skinny87, Ranger Steve

I believe the article meets the Good Topic criteria. It includes a set of similar, interrelated articles that cover a specific topic, which are all GA Class or above. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support All the articles on this division's major sub-units and operations are of GA standard - great work Jim. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support What can I say? Simply exemplary. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. Superb. Buggie111 (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Headbomb

Comments

Comment articles are free of disambiguation links. all external links seem to be working. Alt text however, is in dire need of attention. In most of the articles. Not a reason to object, but since we're paying attention to the topic, might a well keep our readers with visual difficulties in mind. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text added Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Operation Ladbroke, Operation Fustian, Battle of Arnhem, and Operation Doomsday are apparently in need of geocoordinates. It's also possible the others are in need of them, but they haven't been marked as such. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All geoocordinates added except for Operation Turkey Buzzard which covered 3,200 miles from England to North Africa. If required can you suggest where its located? Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I do. It's just something I noticed when checking the articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest the LZ in Tunisia, if that's possible. Buggie111 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done as suggested by Buggie111 Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad referencing in certain places Reflinks is trying to change several named references. This is usually do to a mismatch, such as using "<ref name=mitch156>Mitcham 2007, p.158</ref>" in one place, and "<ref name=mitch156>Mitcham 2007, p.156</ref>" in the other. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All references fixed.Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor styling issue, some of the references are listed as "Peters and Buist" while others are listed as "Shortt & McBride" (see e.g. 4th Parachute Brigade (United Kingdom)). One style should be picked and stuck with on all the articles. Likewise for "p.83" and "p. 145".Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone see this kind of inconsistency within a single article? - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave one above, but it's been fixed now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All changed to the same style. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Why not add British airborne operations in North Africa? It's a good article too. You might also consider Frederick Browning. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had not considered Browning, but the North Africa operation was not carried out by the 1st Airborne Division, just the 1st Parachute Brigade in an independent role.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Disclaimer - main contributor to the Battle of Arnhem article). Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great example of a GT. Zangar (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent work all around. Keep it up! Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the footnotes section of the lead article I'm seeing three long gibberish strings, the first being "?UNIQ516aa7fbef5695e-nowiki-00000004-QINU?2?UNIQ516aa7fbef5695e-nowiki-00000005-QINU?". Is this on my end or is something broken over there? Sven Manguard Wha? 17:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dont see that Sven Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do see this problem in my normal Chrome and also in IE9, but only when logged out in both - I have no idea as to why! Zangar (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes logged out and get the same, it seems to link to the citation but instead of [22] has the uni-code. I have never seen it before and would not know how to fix it. Its strange as its not happening with other citations and a quick spot check of the other articles does not display the same. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have changed a <ref name=ferg15/> to <ref name=ferg15>Ferguson, p15</ref> which seem to have fixed it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's got it, well done! Zangar (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent and well-organised coverage of a focused topic area. (Disclaimer: I copy-edited two of these articles for GA.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]