Talk:2nd Canadian Regiment/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Done. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 02:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * I've moved the unused refs to external links.  Magic ♪piano 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * I've converted these to tables.  Magic ♪piano 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * B. Focused:
 * This should be better now.  Magic ♪piano 17:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I would like to point out (having worked to improve the text of this article more than its sourcing), that a number of the sources currently used are not all that reliable. A link to a historical marker description? What makes revwar75.com reliable (or rootsweb)? Citing the BBC for the Battle of Brandywine?

Another point that is perhaps less visible than it ought to be is the assertion at CONGRESSOWN.jpg that the flag at the head of this article may not be a proper representation of the regimental standard. This assertion was added by an anonymous IP, but I have no sourcing to either confirm or deny the flag's accuracy.  Magic ♪piano 20:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved the flag image down, and tempered its authenticity.  Magic ♪piano 17:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. The Structure and MoS stuff have been fixed. That said, the sourcing issues brought up by Magicpiano (thank-you btw. I haven't done one of these in a fair while, and the review structure still baffles me and causes me to miss stuff. ACRs are much easier!) have yet to be fixed. Fix those and I'll be happy to pass. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll fix the cite tags and replace the bad refs hopefully soon. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 01:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was able to cite most of them, and hid anything remaining that I could not. All that's left to do is fix any sources that aren't good. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything is finally fixed. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding Wizardman's statement, I think everything is closer to fixed now, and probably worth Climie's look now.  Magic ♪piano 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)