Talk:102nd Intelligence Wing/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:102d Intelligence Wing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I've fixed the issues that originally failed the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewer assessment
Thank you for your nomination. However, although you fixed some of its issues, I think that you perhaps renominated this article too soon after its original review, as it still has many of the same problems. I'm therefore failing this review, as the article is still not ready for GA assessment. I've given a detailed explanation below.

Specific issues:
 * The article may need a more descriptive title. "102d Intelligence Wing" doesn't even tell me what country's armed forces the unit is from, and I'm not sure what 102d means (I'm guessing 102nd, in which case it should say this).


 * The lead is not a fair summary of the article. Per WP:LEAD, it should summarise rather than introduce the article. It needs to mention every major point covered by the article body, and should be capable of standing alone as a sort of mini-article in its own right.


 * There are many assertions made in the text that need explicit citations. From the relevant bits of the Good article criteria, citations should be given for all statistics, and statements that could be challenged. Just a few examples from the article are:
 * "The 101st actually had to raise $15,000 so that it could complete the runways."
 * "Otis Field was named in after 1st Lt Frank J. Otis, Jr., MD, a 101st flight surgeon who killed in a flight accident in 1938."
 * "Other escort missions involved the escorting of drug smuggling planes and the identifying of one mysterious ghost plane, which turned out later to be a weather balloon."
 * "Some people were willing to see the base closed but many in the community have gotten so used to the sound of the jets that they really did not want to see them go."


 * The prose is generally well-written, but patchy in places. I would recommend a general copyedit from an editor unfamiliar with the article. For example, from the Origins section: "The 101st was also ordered into state service in 1936 and 1938 during a devastating flood and hurricane to fly observation missions and to drop food and equipment to stranded fishermen and the residents of Isle au Haut, Maine. It also played a big part in the U.S. Army Air Service's flight around the world. It also cared for the Spirit of St. Louis when Charles Lindbergh visited the state." (repetition of the word 'also'). Regionalisms are also discouraged, like the use of the word 'gotten' (which is only really used in American English).


 * There are still too many lists in the article - it might be possible to redesign these using tables (see Help:Table) if they can't somehow be worked into the prose.


 * Manual of Style compliance is not bad, but I noticed a few citations that are misplaced (they should directly follow end-of-sentence punctuation with no gaps). Per WP:MOSHEAD, section headings and sub-headings should in general only have their first letter capitalised (ie "Aircraft operated" rather than "Aircraft Operated"), and the table of contents is rather long, suggesting that the article layout could be improved by merging some of the subsections or splitting them off into their own articles. For example, I think that the History could be reduced to three or four subsections at most (Origins, WWII, Cold War, Post-CW).


 * The External links section could be trimmed down - external links are only really necessary to expand on content not covered by the article for copyright or other good reasons.

I think this article has the potential to be very good, but it needs more work that can be managed in the time allowed for a GA hold. Please feel free to nominate again when all the issues have been addressed, or you can take this article and review to WP:GAR if you feel I am mistaken in my application of the GA criteria. You may find it useful to look at current similar Good Articles to get an idea of the standards we are after (something like 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)).

All the best, and I hope this helps. EyeSerene talk 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)