Talk:172nd Infantry Brigade (United States)/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:172nd Infantry Brigade (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status, and they all seem pretty minor. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Minor issues, see below.

Minor questions to be dealt with:
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * "The 172d Infantry Brigade (Separate) was first constituted" is there a reason this is 172d? should it be 172nd?
 * This is actually an issue that has been addressed before with no clear outcome. The US government omits the "n" in all Army unit numberings (172d is the "official" designation) but essentially no one else does so. This has been an issue before (such as on the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment page, which was moved to "2d" for a while) what in your judgment should be done? - Ed! (talk)(Hall of Fame) 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should chose one version and use it consistently throughout the article (including the title). Create a redirect for the other and then make a note, perhaps as a footnote or perhaps as a hidden comment (your choice) explaining the issue, using sources where appropriate.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't actually see a note anywhere. I think making one is important because otherwise this article might get moved around suddenly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about now? - Ed! (talk)(Hall of Fame) 12:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There it is! GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There it is! GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "During this time it was also assigned to For the majority of the US involvement" - I think something is missing here.


 * The links to First Army etc. go to disambiguation pages, find something specific to link them to or delink them.


 * "Thus, all three brigades that were designated as the 172nd Infantry Brigade since 2006 will be serving together in Iraq." - I might have missed something above, but what does this actually mean? That all the above brigades have been named the 172nd since 2006? --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, three units have been designated "172nd Infantry Brigade" since 2006. The first brigade was reflagged as the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division in 2006, and the second was reflagged from the 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division in 2008. Both of these brigades will be serving in Iraq along with what is now the 172nd Infantry Brigade. - Ed! (talk)(Hall of Fame) 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So . . . The unit that was the 172nd brigade is now 1st Brigade, 25th Division, another unit bore the designation 172nd for a time but is now 2nd Brigade, 1st Division and now a third brigade (raised from where? scratch?) has the name? Is this right? Is there a way you can make this clearer in the article? If the unit using the name keeps changing, does the new unit to bear it maintain the associated history or do they have their own traditions from whatever designation they had before they became the 172nd?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that US Army unit designations can become very convoluted...let me explain again and see if the article reflects this well. The first unit ("Brigade A") was the 172nd Infantry Brigade from 1998-2006, until it became "1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division". Same soldiers, new name. The 172nd officially ceased to exist then, as no unit had the designation. Brigade B was the "2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division" until 2008, when it was redesignated as the 172nd Innfantry Brigade. "Brigade C" was "3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division" until Brigade B had its name changed, and then Brigade C became "2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division." The ultimante goal for all these name changes is to realign army units as they are moved around, as well as build new units as part of Grow the Army. The brigade that will take the name that Brigade C previously had is being built from the ground up. So, the three brigades that were at one time the 172nd Infantry Brigade are all going to Iraq. - Ed! (talk)(Hall of Fame) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That explains it very well, is there anyway you can explain it in an encyclopedic way in the article? If its too difficult don't worry, I won't prevent the article from becoming a GA on this account.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I just removed it instead. I thought it would be an interesting little bit of trivia, but it's not that important and explaining it just throws the article off topic. - Ed! (talk)(Hall of Fame) 00:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. For what it is worth, it is an interesting bit of trivia but I think you're right about the difficulty of explaining it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)