Jump to content

Talk:54th Engineer Battalion (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article54th Engineer Battalion (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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 22, 2009Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Special Troops Battalion, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Over all this article is good, though I did find a few issues:

  • Ref #6 (Brandon Aird) is a dead link, so those referenced by that need a new one.
  • "as well as A Company, a Combat Engineer company, B Company, a Military Intelligence company, and C Company, a Signal company." I originally misread that as C Company and Signal company being two different companies. I assume they're one in the same, so reword.
  • Even when the publisher's listed in the article's title it should still be added (i think i added them all, just a note for you for the future)
  • Make sure dates and authors are added for references when applicable.
  • "Throughout their 15-month deployment, the brigade participated in more than 9,000 patrols throughout the region." Should be 'OVER 9000' (I'm just kidding, this sentence is fine :P)

I'll put this on hold for a few days and pass upon completion. Wizardman 16:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A) Too short B) Only websites; lack of book sources. I would reject. Peltimikko (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you clearly have no experience dealing with Good Articles. Per WP:GAR and WP:RGA, length is not a factor in determining the worthiness of an article, nor are book sources. —Ed!(talk) 12:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, no books is not a criterion in and of itself (if there were a bunch of books on it and none were used, that would be a different story), and given what it is, the length is fine. Anyway, I'll now pass the article. Wizardman 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 54th Engineer Battalion (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:54th_Engineer_Battalion_(United_States)&oldid=1197063241"