| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fort Greble article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Fort Greble has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 25, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Fort Greble was built so fast that there was no time to construct proper earthen magazines for artillery, and three years later company quarters had to be demolished to add them? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA review comments edit
Hello, here are my comments following a review for good article criteria.
- I'm not sure I like the image in the infobox because it isn't actually of Fort Greble itself. Seems a bit strange to have "something like what you might have found at Fort Greble" being the main picture.
- I haven't been able to find any pictures of the fort in operation, so it was the best I could do. Removed.
- Understood. You could place the image elsewhere, possibly smaller. It was just misleading in the manner in which was being used originally. The Rambling Man 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I'll be putting that one back in, as well as some pictures of the types of cannons featured at the fort. Any other suggestions?
- Understood. You could place the image elsewhere, possibly smaller. It was just misleading in the manner in which was being used originally. The Rambling Man 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why is 1861 wikilinked in the infobox and no other years wikilinked? I'd unlink it.
- Unlinked
- For year and page ranges, use the en-dash, per WP:DASH.
- Fixed the range in the infobox. Couldn't find any others
- Check all the page ranges in the references, they need en-dashes as well. The Rambling Man 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Got 'em. Good eye.
- Check all the page ranges in the references, they need en-dashes as well. The Rambling Man 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- For section headings, don't over-capitalise - see WP:HEAD.
- Fixed.
- Place citations in accordance with WP:CITE, so on the right-hand side of punctuation where possible and no space between the citation and the punctuation.
- Fixed the reference to the defensive perimeter.
- Wikilink whole dates per WP:DATE.
- Fixed
- Consider wikilinking Capitol to assist the non-expert readers.
- Fixed
- Gen. is abbreviated while Major isn't. Be consistent (I'd use the full titles).
- Fixed
- Avoid "hadn't" - use "had not"
- Fixed
- If possible, wikilink some of the weapon types described e.g. howitzer, mortar etc.
- Fixed to the extent that the articles exist. Many of them, such as Field Howitzer, do not exist as separate articles.
- Understood, looks better to me. The Rambling Man 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't put external links in the main body (e.g. the link to Fort Greble Recreation Center), they belong in the External links section (per WP:EL)
- Done, and wikilinked the name in the main body.
With these in mind, I'll place the GA on hold until they're corrected. The Rambling Man 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good work, I'm promoting to GA now. Well done. The Rambling Man 14:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Automatic addition of "class=GA" edit
A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
GA Reassessment edit
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fort Greble/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
GA Sweeps: Kept edit
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)