Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/20th Engineer Brigade (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as Not promoted --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-Nomination The article is a good GA, and has improved substantially over the past few months. -Ed! (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment looks promising but relies almost entirely on government/military sites as sources. Talking about the "enemy" (as in "destroyed over 6000 enemy bunkers") is POV. It also has many niggly little copy problems and needs a close copy edit.
- Use of (Combat)(Airborne) with no intervening space looks strange.
- Various day/month dates need wikilinking.
- Copy edit for punctuation (apostrophes; hyphens "7,700 soldier force" > "7,700-soldier force"; abbreviations: "U.S." > "US"; etc
- Not all units of measurement are converted: these need doing, including "one million tons of munitions".
- --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- About the (Combat)(Airborne) thing, the problem is that that is the unit's official name, with both designations in seperate parenthises.There really isn't any other way to put it; that's what the unit is formally called. -Ed! (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 'Unit' should be 'formation' throughout. Did you run this through a MILHIST peer review? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I was under the impression that the A-class review would come with enough advice on its own. -Ed! (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, no. An A-class review will be much more cursory. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment(s)
- Is the information cited int he intro paragraph presented in the article body? If so, I would recommend removing the citation from the intro and citing the corrosponding info in the article body.
- In the intro you have the following lines: "The brigade supported American forces for several years and a dozen campaigns of the Vietnam War, but was deactivated shortly after American forces withdrew from the country. Reactivated in 1967..." If memory serves, we (by which I mean the US) were still in Vietnam in 1967. This needs to be clarified.
- Decide on a date format. You have an interchanging DD/MM/YYYY and MM/DD/YYYY format in the article, which according to MoS guidelines in unacceptable; it needs to be all the former style or all the latter. Additionaly, all dates formatted in this manner should be linked.
- If you are citing an entire paragraph to a single source, consider putting only one cite at the end of the paragraph.
- Its a good start, but it still needs work; nonetheless I commend you for getting this far. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.