Talk:Eighth Army Ranger Company/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I'll bite. Reviewing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some small spots of prose niggles and a few MOS issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

Organization:

• "...unique initial organization of three officers and 73 enlisted men." think MOS wants "...unique initial organization of 3 officers and 73 enlisted men." or "...unique initial organization of three officers and seventy-three enlisted men." Your choice.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• With that same phrase - why was it unique?
  • As noted below, all other ranger companies were organized differently. —Ed!^(talk) 18:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The unit was formulated based on the..." awkward - can we reword to something not so jargony here? Maybe "The unit's organization was based on the.."?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Jargon alert: "They were authorized no vehicles." ... can we write this in non-jargon? It'll read better too.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Subsequent Ranger companies furnished 107 enlisted men and five officers in three platoons..." Furnished???? They were furniture???? Suggest a different word - maybe "comprised" or something like that. Also need to either use words or numerals again here ...
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• "...which meant it did not have a permanent lineage." This means what to the non-specialist?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Origins:

• "...though few mentioned combat experience." do you mean "...though few had combat experience."?

• • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• "...considered traditions for Ranger training from World War II." do you mean "...considered traditions from Ranger training from World War II."?

• • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• "...Of the original 76 men, 12 either dropped out of training or were injured,[17] and so the company was furnished with 10 KATUSAs." explain what KATUSAs are rather than rely on a link?

• • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hill 205:

• "...and many of the Rangers were killed in their foxholes being shot or stabbed with bayonets." awkward - perhaps "and many of the Rangers were killed in their foxholes by being either shot or stabbed with bayonets."

• • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• "...under First Sergeant Charles L. Pitts..." two things - one, you've always lowercased ranks prior to this and second, don't we have an article on Pitts? If we don't and won't, why is it neccessary to mention his name here?
  • Fixed the rank. As for the name, we don't have an article on him, but for the time he was the commander of the unit, so I thought it was relevant. —Ed!^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Operation Ripper:

• "newly arrived in theater" - can we avoid the jargon?

• • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Analysis:

• "Altogether, 15 Ranger companies would be formed in 1950 and 1951, and another six would see combat in Korea." Needs to be either "fifteen" and "six" or "15" and "6"
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• In this section, you uppercase all ranks - unlike what you've done earlier - this needs standardizing.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• "meant they lacked the manpower conducting basic tactical maneuvers" do you mean "meant they lacked the manpower for conducting basic tactical maneuvers"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• "a military author"?? that's kinda implied from the fact that he's retired military - can we say what sort of subjects he specializes in?

• • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Usual excellent work - just a few niggles.

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 16:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed everything. Thanks for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)