Talk:166th Aviation Brigade (United States)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The second external link (Link to 1st Army Division Units) deadlinks.
 * Removed. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The organization section has a lot of redlinks. If these are likely to have articles made, then it's fine to leave them, but if they're not, please remove the wikilinks.
 * Removed Battalion redlinks. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Organization section, you say "The 1st Battalion, 337th Regiment (Training Support) specialized in mobilization and de-mobilization for airborne units." with "specialized" making it past tense. However, I don't see anything about this Battalion having been decommissioned (is that the right word?), so should it be "specializes"?
 *  Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused about the naming of the brigade. In the History section, you say that it was initially activated as "Headquarters, 166th Aviation Group". It was then reactivated in 1997 as "166th Aviation Brigade".  However, you then say "the 3rd Brigade, 75th Division was redesignated as the 166th Aviation Brigade", apparently in 2006.  I guess I'm not seeing how it got to be the 3rd Brigade in the first place, as the other wordings are making it seem like its always been the 166th.
 * Let me explain, since brigade lineage is an annoyingly convoluted process. The Brigade's lineage has always been that of the 166th Aviation brigade/group, but when that brigade deactivated in 1999, the lineage was essentially unused since there was no unit going by the name. In 2006, the 3rd Brigade, 75th Division was renamed the 166th Aviation Brigade. 3rd Brigade was a different unit entirely but when it changed its name, the 166th Aviation Brigade became active again. So the lineage of the 166th itself never changed, but the brigade that called itself the 166th did. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref 7 (Global security) deadlinks.
 *  Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a nice article, but there are a few prose/MOS issues and one deadlinking web ref that need to be fixed, so I am putting the article on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright, everything looks good so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Thank you for explaining the lineage/naming thing...I understand it now.  I don't see any way to make it more clear in the text, so I guess I'm going to just say leave it as it is unless you have an "ah-ha" moment about how to make it clearer for dumb civilians like me :) Nice work on the article, and thanks for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a nice article, but there are a few prose/MOS issues and one deadlinking web ref that need to be fixed, so I am putting the article on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright, everything looks good so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Thank you for explaining the lineage/naming thing...I understand it now.  I don't see any way to make it more clear in the text, so I guess I'm going to just say leave it as it is unless you have an "ah-ha" moment about how to make it clearer for dumb civilians like me :) Nice work on the article, and thanks for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)