Talk:1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States)/GA1

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

This is my review of 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States). At this time, I think it is just short of GA level. However, as this is my first GA review I am requesting a 2nd Opiniong. Overall, the article is informative and covers the topic well. There are some problems, however, with the grammar and spelling.

GA requirements
 * Well-written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and No (see below)
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Yes
 * Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;Yes But some of the footnotes could be better, I had no idea what the Almanac was until I hunted it down further below
 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;Yes and
 * (c) it contains no original research.
 * Broad in its coverage:
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Yesand
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).Yes
 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.Mostly yes
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.Yes
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images Yes:
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; Yes and
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.Yes

Problems noted --HistorianBell 05:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * spelling problems (contingencies and not contengencies (found in 3rd paragraph, first line of intro; 1st paragraph of Readiness Controversy, line 4)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * wikilinks could be better (specifically Reorganization Objective Army Divisions link directs the user to an article about Transformation of Army. There is a sub section talking about ROAD, but that is all the way down at the bottom of the article; also why is there no link to something explaining the modular brigade concept earlier on)
 * Clarified the ROAD link. As for the modular concept, that subject is covered in the Brigade Combat Team article, which is linked to in the first sentence of the lead. — Ed! (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * repetitive language in places (e.g. awarded used multiple times in a paragraph when other terms would be appropriate)
 * I fixed that where I think I saw it. — Ed! (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the Mostly Yes on Neutral POV: Readiness controversy devotes more to criticism than response (but that may be because there was little response). Was it just criticism or was a problem actually identified and corrected?
 * The back-and-forth in that section is all it really was. A lot of talk and a push-back of the deployment scheme. It really isn't possible to tell how ready the division was for combat, but the only real action taken is noted. — Ed! (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Passive voice in a number of places.
 * Removed everywhere I saw it. — Ed! (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It will take me a day or two to complete these requests. As an experienced GA reviewer, I would be happy to assist you in other GA reviews (though this one I can't, for obvious reasons) but I can tell you that you don't necessarily need a second opinion. If you don't feel the article quite reaches the GA criteria but is relatively close to, then all you have to do is place it "on hold" and let me make the improvements you want. In the meantime, I'll get to work on the suggestions. — Ed! (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wanted a confirmation first. I have in other cases been accused of being too harsh. --HistorianBell 06:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianBell (talk • contribs)

Hello Ed and HistorianBell! Overall this looks like a nice article, just a couple of comments that I have: HistorianBell, in my opinion, your assessment was right on track, and in no way was "too harsh". Even if my two above comments were not acted upon, I believe this article to be of GA status. I hope this helps! Dana boomer (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by Dana boomer
 * The second and third paragraphs of the lead both start with "Activated as". Could this be mixed up a bit?
 * In the Italy subsection, the sentence "Preliminary defensive actions were followed on February 19, 1945 by the Battle of Monte Castello in conjunction with troops of a Brazilian Expeditionary Force." is slightly confusing. I think it means that they were fighting side-by-side with Brazilian troops, but it could definitely be worded better.
 * Thanks for the confirmation. I changed it to on hold pending the change to that sentence. Reading it again, it is confusing. --HistorianBell 06:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianBell (talk • contribs)
 * Fixed both suggestions. — Ed! (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No longer on hold, passed --HistorianBell 05:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)