Talk:29th Infantry Division (United States)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
A few spots that need explication
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

Images -
- File:Ruban de la croix de guerre 1939-1945.PNG lacks source information. Is this a public domain image/etc? I won't hold back GA status on this one concern, but if you're heading towards FAC, this image could be a problem there.
  - I'm not looking to make the article a FA quite yet, but when I do I will look into that image's copyright, it appears in many of my other A-class articles. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General -
- I note the couple of sentences at the end that need citations, but they aren't wildly contentious nor are they on information so crucial to the article that if they were removed it'd suffer. If you're planning on FAC though, you need those fixed.
- The prose is servicable, but strongly suggest an outside copyedit or two before attempting FAC.
- Might also benefit by a bit more context before going on to FAC, as the historical events surrounding the narrative here are not explained at all, merely linked. Fuller context would be expected at FAC most probably.
  - Agreed with all points, but at the time I don't have time to promote the article any further than GA. I will request a copy edit and the details of the peer review when the time comes. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead -
- Explain what KFOR is, yes, you've linked it but abbreviations should be expanded the first time they are used in an article.
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History -
- "The division was comprised of the 57th Infantry Brigade from New Jersey (115th and 116th Infantry Regiments),..." i presume that the information in the ()'s means that it was made up of those two regiments? Keep in mind that not everyone reading the article would know that. Perhaps "The division was comprised of the 57th Infantry Brigade from New Jersey - comosed of the 115th and 116th Infantry Regiments,..." might work better. At the least you need to make the connection explicit. Same for the rest of the sentence.
  - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
World War I -
- I know the military uses casulties differently than civilians do. In this article do you mean the military definition (both killed and wounded) or civilian definition (killed only)? Better to make that explicit at the beginning.
  - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you dont mean this but this phrase "... 170 officers and 5,691 men.." strongly implies that the officers aren't men. Is there a missing "enlisted" in front of "men"?
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
World War II -
- "At the outbreak of World War II, the United States Army began buildup and reorganization." Buildup and regoranzation of what? Please specify.
  - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Overlord -
- "The final cross-channel invasion came on June 6, 1944, Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy." this sentence is jarring as there have been no mentions of any other cross-channel invasions. Perhaps "The invasion of France came on June 6, 1944 with the launching of Operation Overlord on the Normandy beaches." or something similar.
  - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The regiment was assigned four sectors of the beach... " I assume you mean the 116th? Suggest you make this explicit, as the last regiment mentioned was the 16th, thus just referring to "regiment" is unclear.
  - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same for "Soldiers of the division boarded a large number of attack... " as the last division mentioned was the 1st.
  - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Present day -
- SFOR? Please explain this abbreviation, not just link it.
  - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Organization - shouldn't this be "Current organization"?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to all of your concerns. Thank you for your thorough review. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the article since the previous GA review have further improved the article. So I think it would be appropriate to give it GA on WikiProject Maryland also.Folklore1 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]