Talk:36th Engineer Brigade (United States)/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The third external link ("Lineage & Honors of the 36th") deadlinks for me.
   • In the lead, you say "command & control". Could this be "command and control", pretty please? *grin*
   • Lead, you say "brigade saw its role changed several times". Could this be "saw its role change"? I think either way is correct, but the second is easier to understand and looks less odd in a first reading, IMO.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • The last two sentences of the first paragraph of the "Organization" section need a ref.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, a nice article - I can't believe it has two failed reviews in the past few months - bad luck there! I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with a couple of minor MOS/prose things and one referencing issue. If you have any questions, let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough. It's done now, thanks for the quick review! -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks great, so I am passing the article. Thanks for the quick response! Dana boomer (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)