Talk:18th Engineer Brigade (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 18th 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.
April 10, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

GA Comments[edit]

I've fixed some trouble and rather than weighing you down with MoS stuff, I'll fix the more obvious things myself, I just wanted you to make note that: full dates are always linked as in January 5, 1955, but years and months alone are not, hence you wouldn't usually link April, 2007 unless it gave context to the article. About the source formatting, I prefer to use citation templates, but you are not required to use them, as long as the ref is properly formatted, in this case comes "last name of author; first name of author; any coauthors; title (url linked for websites); publish date; publisher; accessdate", a problem is that you've got the title before the name. Also, it should be "Retrieved on 2008-03-15" note the "on" and the wikilinked date, and make sure you're format is yyyy-mm-dd or the wikilink won't work. Another thing that I saw on the last article I've reviewed for you; section headings aren't considered titles and don't use title case, hence only the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns are capitals. These are issues I will fix, I just wanted to make sure you're aware of them. You can also experiment with citation templates, I like to use them as they do the formatting for you. Contentwise it seems good so far, but I haven't really studied it too in depth, I'll fix up the formatting and bring up any issues here. The Dominator (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the footnote[1] comes after punctuation, (This sentence is false.[2], rather than This sentence is false[3].) and refs should generally not be cited in the lead as long as the information there will be repeated in the article (and it should be, that is what a lead is for). The Dominator (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Just let me know about whatever I need to correct. -Ed! (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Small thing, there's nothing against red links, but you have to make sure they're probable and give context which most of them do, I presume that articles are going to eventually be created on the cities and battalions, but a few of them, Organized Reserves, or English Airfield are pretty unlikely to ever be created and if they are going to be created, then most likely as redirects to something unrelated. So, I wanted to ask you to remove red links that have improbable targets as my knowledge here is limited, I don't feel fit to judge what a useful red link is and what an excess red link is here. The Dominator (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 Done all minor redlinks removed. Hopefully I'll get to creating those battalions at some point. -Ed! (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a beginning page for the 15th Engineer Battalion under my user page and will be moving it over once the battalion reactivates on July 16th. -Will (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there some guideline for section order, as in is there something that says a "Famous recruits" section comes after "Honors and decorations"? Because if not, I'd like to see the "Famous soldiers" section before the large "Honors" section cause it kind of shoves the former out of the way, of course this is a personal preference and if you like it better this way you're entitled to keep it that way, it won't affect the GA review at all, I'll get into prose and content reviewing shortly. The Dominator (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The 6 section format I've been using for units has been very sucessful, so I've been using it for all of them. I used that order because I felt that the unit honors section was much more directly related to the unit than the list of people who were all famous but whose fame may or may not have been related to the unit at all. I've just been using the uniformity, I think, is very encyclopedic. Should it be changed? -Ed! (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it's a very minor thing, I agree that it's encyclopedic, just in some articles (this one for example) the "Famous" section is rather short and less visible, but no, leave it this way. Is that all of the information you can include in the future section? Is there maybe enough info to change it to "Legacy" and not just famous soldiers, the section does seem to need expansion, obviously if no such info exists then that means the article is as comprehensive as it can get, but if you find some more info it would be nice. Overall, very good article, I don't think I'll have many issues with it. The Dominator (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm close to passing, sourcing looks good, I would like to see every paragraph sourced even if it means being a little redundant, (i.e. you write a paragraph that contains a questionable statement, you source that and then you cite the whole paragraph even if it means citing the same source you did a few sentences ago). I would like to see some expansion done on the "Famous Soldiers" section, because so far there are only three people listed there and if you can't find more info at least expand upon why it is notable that these people served in the Brigade. Also in that section it says "...have gone on to serve as Chief of Engineers, the head of the US Army's Corps of Engineers. They are Joe N. Ballard,[11] John W. Morris, [12] and Walter K. Wilson, Jr.." it is unclear from this whether the last sentence refers to people who became "Chief of Engineers" or if it's referring to the first sentence of the paragraph about general notability. I'd like to see the caption of Image:Col kurd.jpg expanded, because from the current caption it is unclear as to what and who the picture is of. The Dominator (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. -Ed! (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Last thing; I think some expansion could be done to organization, for example, while this is pretty obvious it doesn't say that it's a part of the United States Army, it justs says that in the lead which technically means that the article is introducing original information in the lead. Also, who's the current commander? If you can't find any more information just expand it with what you have, some of the stuff in the infobox, maybe a bit more about the subordinate battalions and maybe a half-sentence on the V-Corps to make it clear to the reader what that is without making him click on the link. The Dominator (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How about now? -Ed! (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Good, just write the commanders into the organization section as well and I'm going to pass as I've reached a point where I'm just nit-picking. The Dominator (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. -Ed! (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

  1. Well Written
  • Pass, but if you ever plan on going A-class or FA I strongly suggest you get it copyedited from someone more skilled than I am.
  1. Verifiable
  • Pass, as with all articles it would benefit from more sources, I suggest finding a few independent of US army.
  1. Broad
  • Pass, no trouble here, follows a similar layout as with other brigades. If you were to take it further I'd like expansion in "Legacy" and a bit more about "Organization", the history is pleasantly comprehensive.
  1. Neutral
  • Pass
  1. Stable
  • Pass
  1. Images
  • Pass

Therefore, I pass this article as a GA, good work! The Dominator (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

April Deployment[edit]

I changed the April 2006 deployment to April 2005 Operation Eduring Freedom. I was on that deployment April 2005-April 2006. Also COL Russell was not our commander during that time. COL Michael Flanagan was our commander. We also recieved award MUC for our time there , mostly for the road building and mine clearing. (talk)Joshua Hernandez —Preceding comment was added at 02:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know of any public sites that diplay those orders? It would make for a good source. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 05:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 18th Engineer Brigade (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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ test
  2. ^ Bullshit
  3. ^ Bullshit