Talk:220th Military Police Brigade/GA1

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Individual years should not be wikilinked.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * If available, the author name should go first in the reference in the last name, first name format.
 * Current refs 3 and 6 need publisher info.
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall, a well-written article. I am putting the article on hold to allow time to address the few minor concerns detailed above. If you have questions, you can ask them here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed everything. How does it look now? - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  17:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good, so I'm passing the article. For future work, I would suggest putting the author name first in the references, before the title, but this isn't something I'm going to hold the GA up over. Dana boomer (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)