Talk:Rhode Island Army National Guard

Military history: North America / United States C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

Suggestions for improvement

Referencing: in-line citations - at least one per paragraph, there are still some paragraphs in the article that don't have citations, particularly in the history section;
Style: the introduction is probably a bit too long - it should just be a summary of the article, therefore I'd suggest maybe putting most of the information about the conditions of service of the National Guard into a Background section or something similar, after the introduction (it was certainly interesting for me to read, though);
Coverage: Not a bad attempt at all, has lots of good information and provides a good summary, however, I think it should be expanded a little before it can be assessed as a B - for example, perhaps more information on current operations. The current deployment of Rhode Island ANG units only gets a single sentence, even though as the article says it is the biggest mobilisation since WWI; and
a couple of photos - historical and current - would improve it also, although with the infobox and insignia it does fulfill the supporting materials criterion already.

Just some ideas. On the whole not a bad article at all, just needs a few tweaks and I think it could be a B. Hope this helps. Once it has been done, I suggest putting it up for re-assessment at WP:MHA. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]