Talk:2nd Ranger Infantry Company (United States)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 00:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll be reviewing this article shortly ... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Could we increase the size of the images in the history and the tomahawk section? They are kinda small at current resolution.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * A few spots of uncertainity
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * Lead:
 * "They underwent several major operations.." a bit unclear ... the last group mentioned was the 7th Infantry Division... I assume you mean that the Company underwent major operations, but the location does not make this clear.
 * People's Volunteer Army is Chinese or North Korean?
 * "...which continually pooled in untrained African American replacements." Im not getting the tie of the last part to the earlier part of the sentence.
 * Why was the company disbanded?
 * Organization:
 * Why the ""s for "as a "test" unit"?
 * Not required, but perhaps a link for "sniper"?
 * Korea:
 * Why the capital for Armored in "Rangers formed the Armoured spearhead of the 1st Battalion"?
 * Links for "Majori-ri" or "Tanyang"?
 * "This action, seen as a racist move by historians, was done to keep Almond's troops segregated, but also reduced the effectiveness of the company since Ranger replacements were in short supply.[32] subsequently reinforcements with many career fields, including many non-combat troops, joined the company and had to be trained." Run on sentence - suggest breaking it up.
 * Why the quotes around "successful "limited objective" attacks"?
 * Operation Tomahawk:
 * Suggest adding the year to the "On 28 February..., since you've started a new section.
 * "village 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) north" REALLY? 1 whole meter? (and it'd be "meter" not "metre" - American subject). ARe we sure on this whole measurement thing? If the village was only 1 m north of the hill... it was on the hill.
 * Retraining:
 * "The fortified the hill and surrounding areas, which served as an advance outpost to warn the 7th Infantry Division if the Chinese attacked." Something is off here - did you mean "They fortified..."?
 * General
 * why "lieutenant colonel Victor J. Bond" but "Major Chelsea Y. Chae"? Standardize on one capitalization convention.
 * I strongly suggest investigating the Template:Efn option for your notes - it allows you to use tags inside the explantory footnotes as well as being a heck of a lot easier to maintain than system you're currently using.
 * Images:
 * Retraining:
 * "The fortified the hill and surrounding areas, which served as an advance outpost to warn the 7th Infantry Division if the Chinese attacked." Something is off here - did you mean "They fortified..."?
 * General
 * why "lieutenant colonel Victor J. Bond" but "Major Chelsea Y. Chae"? Standardize on one capitalization convention.
 * I strongly suggest investigating the Template:Efn option for your notes - it allows you to use tags inside the explantory footnotes as well as being a heck of a lot easier to maintain than system you're currently using.
 * Images:
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, my understanding is that Ed! is quite busy in real life at the moment and might not get a chance to rectify these issues for a while. As such, I've undertaken a copy edit of this article and think that I have fixed most of the issues that have been raised above. Ed!, if you get a chance, could you please check that you are happy with my changes? Ealdgyth, would you mind taking a look and seeing if your concerns have been addressed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)