Talk:United States Special Operations Command

Bin Laden

Congratulations Warfighters! Thank you for capturing this devil!

Survey

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) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA-Pass

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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:

Good job on this article. Put it on featured nomination in a little while. Thouroghly sourced, large article with wide view, lots of images. Good Job!!

I think it's important to point out that entire paragraphs are still unsourced. This is something that should be dealt with before the article is promoted to GA status, so placing the nomination on hold would have been a good idea. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll make sure everything is sourced. Outdawg (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note that it is generally against status quo to delete sections from an article's talk page - including GA reviews that are not the most current. To avoid confusion between the old and new, it would have been better to archive the talk page, not delete the outdated sections. Additionally, the previous GA, despite the fact that the article ultimately passed in a second GAN, should be listed in the ArticleHistory banner in addition to the newer, successful one. Congrats on GA and good luck at FAC! 75.40.94.244 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Commands of the United States armed forces vs. Category:United States Special Operations Command

Category:United States Special Operations Command is itself a category within Category:Commands of the United States armed forces. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)