Talk:95th Civil Affairs Brigade/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the lead (and again in the organization section), you say "It currently commands three civil affairs battalions". Try to avoid using any words that can become dated, such as, in this instance, "currently".
   • Is there a good chance that all of the redlinked battalions in the Organization section will have their own articles at some point? If not, please de-link.

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:

Overall, a very nice article. I am putting it on hold to allow you time to address the two very minor issues that I have raised above. If you have any questions, please let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues fixed. How does it look now? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Very nice, passing the article. Thanks for the quick response. Dana boomer (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)