Talk:29th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Disambiguations: None found. [3]
• Linkrot: Ext links all work. [4]
• Alt text: all text present. [5]
  • No action required.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• please check the abbreviation used for Corporal in the Battle of Antietam section. You have used "Corp.", but at least in my experience the correct abbreviation should be "Cpl"; Done
• in the Removal from the Irish Brigade section, I suggest rewording this clause: "honoring their role as "honorary Irishmen"..." (repeated word honor is the issue); Done
• In some places I found the language a little awkward, but I don't think it is a enough to hold the article back from GA. I made a few tweaks, but I'd suggest, however, making a request at the Guild of Copy Editors to have someone take a look over the article prior to pursuing an A class review or an FA review.
• Is there an article on the Medal of Honor recipients? If they exist, you should link to them (I've linked a couple I could find); Done
• there are a couple of citations that should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS, e.g. Bowen, 435; Bowen, 451; and Bowen, 448; Done

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• There are a few sentences/paragraphs that have not been cited. I have marked them with the citation needed tags. If citations can be added in these locations, this criteria would be met. Done

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• I've made a few edits in order to tweak some minor points. Please check that you agree with them.
• There are just a couple of points that I feel need to be addressed prior to passing for GA status.
• Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the {{Done}} tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review and for your improvements to the article. I appreciate your time on this. I think I've addressed your concerns as outlined above. In particular, I created new pages for those two Medal of Honor winners who did not previously have pages and linked them. Also, I added citations where needed. Let me know if I haven't adequately covered any of your concerns. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)