Talk:IX Corps (United States)/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Dana boomer in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ed! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • I fixed the two dab links - please change if I picked the wrong article :)
    • Lead, "It is best known for the conduct as a senior command". What?
    • Lead. The first sentence of the third paragraph is a run-on, but I'm not sure where the best place to split it would be (or else I would have done it myself...).
    • Inconsistent punctuation of U.N. vs UN. Standardize please. (I think the correct way is "UN", but I'm not sure on this.)
    • Chinese intervention, "The corps were to advance steadily northward, protected by heavy artillery and close air support, until they captured Seoul.[25] The corps was". You're talking about multiple corps, then switch to talking about one unnamed corps. Also, before when talking about an individual corps, "corps" was capitalized, now it's not.
    • Chinese Intervention - should this be "Chinese intervention"? (capitalization)
    • Stalemate, "against the hilly regions around the "Iron Triangle" region". Regions, region.
  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):  
    • File:Sto1001.jpg in the Occupation section has several deletion nominations that were never finished. Please check these out.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

For the most part it looks good, just a few tweaks that need to be made. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think all of your concerns have been addressed. Thank you for your thorough review. —Ed!(talk) 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the quick response. Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply