Talk:16th Sustainment Brigade/GA1

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

And I'll take this one too! Should have the review up in a bit... 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):
 * There are quite a few red links sprinkled throughout the article. Like with the 166th - if they're going to become articles, leave them; if they're not, please remove them.
 * I removed the links to the battalion sized units since articles about them are unlikely to be made; however I left the Command sized unit redlinks because those formations are much larger and it is very likely that articles about them will be made.  Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of the "Activation" section gets a little confusing to me. The paragraph starts off by talking about what is going to happen with the brigade in the future, but then switches to discussing past operations.  Could this be moved around so it is a bit more chronological, like the rest of the section?
 *  Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * Another nice article! There are just a couple of prose/MOS issues that I would like to see fixed before I pass the article, so I am going to place it on hold.  Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs doing.  Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks again for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Another nice article! There are just a couple of prose/MOS issues that I would like to see fixed before I pass the article, so I am going to place it on hold.  Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs doing.  Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks again for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)