Talk:45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States)/GA1

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

Hi, I'll be doing this review. Sasata (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's my first set of comments. I'll let you respond to these suggestions, and then read the article through a second time, checking references. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Recently, though, the brigade has seen deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan in support of the War on Terrorism." Avoid the use of "recently"; "has seen deployments to" -> has been deployed to
 * done. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The brigade is a subordinate unit..." suggest linking brigade
 * done. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...it can take command of additional battalions when needed for operations when deployed." recast to remove repetitive "when"
 * done. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Organized and federally recognized on August 3, 1923 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma." Not a complete sentence. And what's the implication of "federally recognized"?
 * clarified. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Instead, the brigade was used for training of active duty units, " Passive voice... how about just "was used to train"?
 * done. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 1994, the brigade was selected as one of fifteen "enhanced" separate brigades of the Army National Guard," This is the first instance of the phrase "Army National Guard" (not the more specific Oklahoma Army National Guard) and so maybe should be linked for the benefit of those who don't know what a National Guard is.
 * done. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 2000-2001 several hundred soldiers..." ndashes for number ranges. Same thing for the year ranges in the "Honors" section
 * done. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I switched them from m to endashes.


 * "Soldiers of the brigade were among the first national guard units to see front-line patrolling duty in the theater," In the theatre? Is this military jargon, as in "theatre of combat"?
 * clarified. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...a job held exclusively by active duty units until that point." ->"until that time"
 * done. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The brigade trained for a rotation in the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana throughout 2000 and 2001, seeing its deployment to the center throughout 2002 and early 2003." Am not fond of the construction "seeing the deployment"
 * clarified. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The purpose of the soldier's deployment was to assist in the training of Afghan secutity forces." passive voice, try -> "to assist in training Afghan"
 * done. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you maybe put down a few words to explain what a "campaign streamer" is. Also, in the first table, some of the streamers are listed "with Arrowhead", and I have no clue what this means.
 * done. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * what does Semper Anticus on the insignia mean? When did they adopt this motto?
 * clarified. The motto was part of the lineage the brigade adopted from the division. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What (if any) relationship does this brigade have with the 44th and 46th brigades? Do numbers close in sequence imply geographical closeness?
 * No, there is no relationship with units of close numbers. Most of the numbers are traced back to World War I, and the number was simply the order that the divisions were formed. - Ed! (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

More comments:
 * The lead is very thin... how about adding a couple more sentences about history and mention the honors?
 * Done. - Ed! (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article would benefit from a few words about the symbolism of the shoulder unit insignia, available in ref#1. Also, a source is needed for the actual translation of Semper Anticus into English.
 * Done. - Ed! (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Now placing the article on hold. Sasata (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is slightly choppy, but serviceable. Article largely complies with MOS, suggest expanding the lede.
 * Expanded the Lead. - Ed! (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c(OR):
 * Adequately referenced to reliable sources; a ref for Latin translation requested.
 * Ref changed to one that explains the translation. - Ed! (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Suggest to add a bit more detail about the insignia; I think mil-hist buffs might like to know this kind of detail.
 * Done. - Ed! (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * Both images have appropriate free use licenses.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold pending improvements.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold pending improvements.



Article meets GA requirements, so am promoting. Congratulations! Sasata (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)