Talk:29th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment/GA1

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

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Disambiguations: None found.
 * Linkrot: Ext links all work.
 * Alt text: all text present.
 * No action required.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * please check the abbreviation used for Corporal in the Battle of Antietam section. You have used "Corp.", but at least in my experience the correct abbreviation should be "Cpl"; ✅
 * in the Removal from the Irish Brigade section, I suggest rewording this clause: "honoring their role as "honorary Irishmen"..." (repeated word honor is the issue); ✅
 * In some places I found the language a little awkward, but I don't think it is a enough to hold the article back from GA. I made a few tweaks, but I'd suggest, however, making a request at the Guild of Copy Editors to have someone take a look over the article prior to pursuing an A class review or an FA review.
 * Is there an article on the Medal of Honor recipients? If they exist, you should link to them (I've linked a couple I could find); ✅
 * there are a couple of citations that should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS, e.g. Bowen, 435; Bowen, 451; and Bowen, 448; ✅


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are a few sentences/paragraphs that have not been cited. I have marked them with the citation needed tags. If citations can be added in these locations, this criteria would be met. ✅


 * 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.
 * No edit wars etc.:


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * I've made a few edits in order to tweak some minor points. Please check that you agree with them.
 * There are just a couple of points that I feel need to be addressed prior to passing for GA status.
 * Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the ✅ tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your review and for your improvements to the article. I appreciate your time on this.  I think I've addressed your concerns as outlined above.  In particular, I created new pages for those two Medal of Honor winners who did not previously have pages and linked them.  Also, I added citations where needed.  Let me know if I haven't adequately covered any of your concerns.  Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)