Talk:36th Engineer Brigade (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 36th Engineer Brigade (United States) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Good Article Review[edit]

While this is a "good" article (and a better article than the 15th), it does not meet the necessary benchmark for a "Good Article".

  • Uncited statements like "The 36th is the only unit that has been organized in all three command structures that are commanded by a Colonel in the U.S. Army; regiment, group, and brigade."
  • No explanation for its lack of participation in Vietnam, possibly I'm being dense as a non-American and don't understand the intricacies, but it seems like a complete lack of information on its role from 1954 until its deactivation in 1972.
  • Photos of the brigade in Korea and WWII would be a nice touch, and probably found with minimal effort.
  • Similarly, could be improved with some non-DOD references about the brigade in the news and such.

It's a great read, and definitely shows improvement - I'd encourage a few weeks of dedicated editing and then consider re-nominating this article! :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 22:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As a GA reviewer myself, I find these reasonings by themselves somewhat shaky for automatically failing the GA. These things can be fixed with little effort, and the most prudent procedure would have been to put the article on "Hold" to prevent the wasting of time that it will be to re-quee them. I will fix them and renominate -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First GA Issues[edit]

For the next revewer, so it doesn't look like I just ignored the above review:

  • Uncited statements like "The 36th is the only unit that has been organized in all three command structures that are commanded by a Colonel in the U.S. Army; regiment, group, and brigade."
    • That statement was in the lead section, thus should not be cited per WP:LEAD. With the statement in question, no citation is required, as the fact that a Colonel commands these groups can be verified in other wikipedia articles.
  • No explanation for its lack of participation in Vietnam, possibly I'm being dense as a non-American and don't understand the intricacies, but it seems like a complete lack of information on its role from 1954 until its deactivation in 1972.
    • No explination is necessary; the Army had no demand for additional units of this type. The unit was likely garrisoned stateside during this time period, and there is no notable information about it. I have added a sentence in the article clarifying this.
  • Photos of the brigade in Korea and WWII would be a nice touch, and probably found with minimal effort.
    • Hypothetical. The article has sufficient illustration per WP:GACR and there is no policy stating that illustration is needed for every detail in the article. That said, there were no images I could find that depicted this unit specifically that I could find and upload without violating policy on fair use.
  • Similarly, could be improved with some non-DOD references about the brigade in the news and such.
    • Trying to satisfy WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCES for this article is difficult, as there are few non-government webites covering this information that are reliable. Even so, no one has ever used COI as a reason to fail anything other than an FA. I am open to anyone's suggestions as to additional reliable sources on this subject, and if the next reader chooses to hold the GA for this reason alone, I will try and locate other sources.
-Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 23:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to fail this article. There is a major amount of red links, it could stand to be more thouroughly sourced, and it could be expanded. Fix these problems, and then renominate. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 14:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

An entirely unhelpful and ambigous review. Please be more specific as to what exactly I need to expand and source. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible reference problems[edit]

See this link: [1]...it shows what external links that are in the article are dead/not good. This article has 2 bad links. Cheers, the_ed17 19:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:36th Engineer Brigade (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The third external link ("Lineage & Honors of the 36th") deadlinks for me.
    • In the lead, you say "command & control". Could this be "command and control", pretty please? *grin*
    • Lead, you say "brigade saw its role changed several times". Could this be "saw its role change"? I think either way is correct, but the second is easier to understand and looks less odd in a first reading, IMO.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The last two sentences of the first paragraph of the "Organization" section need a ref.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall, a nice article - I can't believe it has two failed reviews in the past few months - bad luck there! I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with a couple of minor MOS/prose things and one referencing issue. If you have any questions, let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough. It's done now, thanks for the quick review! -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Everything looks great, so I am passing the article. Thanks for the quick response! Dana boomer (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)