Talk:Army National Guard/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 11:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

To sum up, the article has definitely improved a lot over the last year or so, and Billmckern's efforts on sourcing etc. have made a real difference. To meet the GA standard, though, it needs a bit more work on the prose - in particular ensuring that each section and paragraph flows together. Some of the lists could be moved to standalone articles, and the space used to cover the wider set of issues around the Army National Guard; the US Army, US Marine Corps or British Army articles might give some ideas about how equipment, training and personnel issues might be communicated. I hope to see the article back at GAN soon! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * Some issues. The "Activation" section has a large number of one-sentence paragraphs; it needs to be formed up into regular prose. There's a similar pattern in much of the history section. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * The lead section is currently very short, and doesn't summarise the article as a whole.
 * The Prominent members list doesn't seem to fit our guidance on embedded lists; on my screen, this gives several pages of single bullet listed names without any commentary. It might work as a stand-alone list article.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * Yes. I'd have preferred to see the publisher details included as well, but that isn't a formal GA requirement. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * Some assertions are unsourced - e.g. "One result of the uneven performance of the militia...", "This fundamental restriction on the use of the militia..." Definitely worth checking all paragraphs that lack at least one source. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.


 * None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * I'd have expected to see coverage of the National Guard's Personnel, Training, Equipment etc. - but this seems to be largely missing.
 * I'm not a specialist, but I know there have been recent scandals involving the National Guard (CBS news terms it the "largest criminal investigation in the history of the United States Army", for example), which don't seem to be covered. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * I couldn't see where the Presidents who served in Army National Guard list was going. This isn't an issue which is pulled out significantly in the articles/books I've been able to find on the National Guard, so I found it strange for it receive so much prominence here. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Neutral, although I note the lack of inclusion of information on recent scandals. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * File:Major-General Braddocks death at the Battle of Monongahela.JPG needs a publication date to justify its tag
 * File:Senator Charles Dick of Ohio, 1858-1945 (cropped).jpg needs a publication date to justify its tag
 * File:Company A, 1st Arkansas, Mexican Expedition.jpg needs evidence for why we believe it was taken by a Federal employee (it originates from the Museum of American History, Cabot Public Schools btw, and is stamped by Hester Photographs)
 * File:GEN Creighton W Abrams.JPG gives a date of creation (1975) but no date of publication or details of the copyright search to justify the tag.
 * File:Michael C. Thompson Commissioner.jpg - copyrighted to the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, which is not part of the Federal Government.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * Relevant. Captions need checking for periods (full-stops). "18th century depiction of militia at the 1637 battle known as the Great Swamp Fight.", for example, isn't a complete sentence, so shouldn't end with one. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)