Talk:1st SAS Brigade/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 05:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Consolidate the lede into one paragraph and generally consolidate your paragraphs in the rest of the article. This is awkward: Towards the latter end of the war the 1st SAS became part of the (also fictional) 4th Airborne Division

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   All books need place of publication. Delete page count from Howard and Rankin.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   I'm not sure that this article shouldn't be merged into British deception formations in World War II.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I've fixed the citations and reworded the end of the lead. I am loathe to consolidate paragraphs as they break quite naturally, and it is bad writing to force everything into one block. But if there is a specific things that look odd I am happy to look at them more closely. Thanks for the review! --Errant ^(chat!) 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Move the paragraph that begins "Clarke began Operation" into the preceeding paragraph as you're now describing how he created the unit.

This sentence lacks a subject: Most often to threaten fictional invasions as a distraction from real Allied operations.

You didn't understand the problem with my earlier example so I've narrowed it down: Towards the latter end of the war Clarke used the the What does latter end mean? And how can the '42-42 period be the latter end rather than mid-war? And fix the double "the" and capitalize "division" since it's part of a proper name.

And, lastly, why shouldn't this article be merged into the British deception formations article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Late '42 onwards is the latter end of the war. But I reworded sections :) should all be fixed. This article is the first in a series on fictional divisions - I am undecided on what to do with the deception formations article, but this won't fit there. I could merge it now if demand was strong, but in the future you're looking at upwards of 20 such brigades with similar (or more) content. I started here as the story (link to the founding of the SAS) has interest. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess that I normally divide the war into three periods, not two, but you've fixed the issue anyway. I agree that this formation does have enough sources to support a separate article because of the SAS connection, but I'm not at all sure that that's true of the other British deception units.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)