Talk:Jiggs II

Jiggs II 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.
Review: December 28, 2018. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Jiggs II appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 January 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that before becoming a United States Marine Corps mascot, Jiggs II won a blue ribbon at the 1926 Westminster Dog Show?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jiggs II.

Wikipedia

Military history: North America / United States

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jiggs II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 18:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote b requires a cite for the second sentence.
There is quite a bit of information in the infobox which is not in the main article. My (and Wikipedia's) strong preference is for the information in the infobox to be duplicated in the article, the infobox is supposed to be an at-a-glance summary of the article. If not, could you source information in the infobox which is not already in the article.
You mention the disagreeable behaviour of Private Pagett in the lead but not in the article. The lead should be a summary of information contained in the article.

Otherwise it is looking good. A very nicely put together article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Gog the Mild - thanks for your review! I think I've fixed all of these now but please let me know if you see anything I've missed. Chetsford (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine piece of work. Very solidly referenced, and dryly amusing. GA.
For me, less is more re images. Your change improves the whole look of the article.
Suggestion. You may want to change the "175px" to "upright=0.75" (or whatever size you fancy) to comply with MOS:IMGSIZE. This will allow the image size to vary according to what readers have set as their preferences.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good call - changed!" Chetsford (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image location

On my browser (13-inch MacBook) the images are also not meeting MOS:IMAGELOC, with text narrowly sandwiched between the infobox and the images. Catrìona (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It works on my laptop, iPad and iPhone, but I can see how it could sandwich between the infobox and the images. Maybe try sliding the left aligned images down as far as they will go and see what Catriona thinks? Gog the Mild (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catrìona - I just fixed the images. LMK if it looks better now. Chetsford (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. Catrìona (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]