Talk:1st SAS Brigade/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 05:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Consolidate the lede into one paragraph and generally consolidate your paragraphs in the rest of the article. This is awkward: Towards the latter end of the war the 1st SAS became part of the (also fictional) 4th Airborne Division
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * All books need place of publication. Delete page count from Howard and Rankin.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * I'm not sure that this article shouldn't be merged into British deception formations in World War II.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I've fixed the citations and reworded the end of the lead. I am loathe to consolidate paragraphs as they break quite naturally, and it is bad writing to force everything into one block. But if there is a specific things that look odd I am happy to look at them more closely. Thanks for the review! --Errant (chat!) 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move the paragraph that begins "Clarke began Operation" into the preceeding paragraph as you're now describing how he created the unit.
 * This sentence lacks a subject: Most often to threaten fictional invasions as a distraction from real Allied operations.
 * You didn't understand the problem with my earlier example so I've narrowed it down: Towards the latter end of the war Clarke used the the What does latter end mean? And how can the '42-42 period be the latter end rather than mid-war? And fix the double "the" and capitalize "division" since it's part of a proper name.
 * And, lastly, why shouldn't this article be merged into the British deception formations article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Late '42 onwards is the latter end of the war. But I reworded sections :) should all be fixed. This article is the first in a series on fictional divisions - I am undecided on what to do with the deception formations article, but this won't fit there. I could merge it now if demand was strong, but in the future you're looking at upwards of 20 such brigades with similar (or more) content. I started here as the story (link to the founding of the SAS) has interest. --Errant (chat!) 08:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that I normally divide the war into three periods, not two, but you've fixed the issue anyway. I agree that this formation does have enough sources to support a separate article because of the SAS connection, but I'm not at all sure that that's true of the other British deception units.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I've fixed the citations and reworded the end of the lead. I am loathe to consolidate paragraphs as they break quite naturally, and it is bad writing to force everything into one block. But if there is a specific things that look odd I am happy to look at them more closely. Thanks for the review! --Errant (chat!) 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move the paragraph that begins "Clarke began Operation" into the preceeding paragraph as you're now describing how he created the unit.
 * This sentence lacks a subject: Most often to threaten fictional invasions as a distraction from real Allied operations.
 * You didn't understand the problem with my earlier example so I've narrowed it down: Towards the latter end of the war Clarke used the the What does latter end mean? And how can the '42-42 period be the latter end rather than mid-war? And fix the double "the" and capitalize "division" since it's part of a proper name.
 * And, lastly, why shouldn't this article be merged into the British deception formations article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Late '42 onwards is the latter end of the war. But I reworded sections :) should all be fixed. This article is the first in a series on fictional divisions - I am undecided on what to do with the deception formations article, but this won't fit there. I could merge it now if demand was strong, but in the future you're looking at upwards of 20 such brigades with similar (or more) content. I started here as the story (link to the founding of the SAS) has interest. --Errant (chat!) 08:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that I normally divide the war into three periods, not two, but you've fixed the issue anyway. I agree that this formation does have enough sources to support a separate article because of the SAS connection, but I'm not at all sure that that's true of the other British deception units.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that I normally divide the war into three periods, not two, but you've fixed the issue anyway. I agree that this formation does have enough sources to support a separate article because of the SAS connection, but I'm not at all sure that that's true of the other British deception units.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)