Talk:IX Corps (United States)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I fixed the two dab links - please change if I picked the wrong article :)
 * Looks good to me. — Ed! (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead, "It is best known for the conduct as a senior command". What?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead. The first sentence of the third paragraph is a run-on, but I'm not sure where the best place to split it would be (or else I would have done it myself...).
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent punctuation of U.N. vs UN. Standardize please. (I think the correct way is "UN", but I'm not sure on this.)
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Chinese intervention, "The corps were to advance steadily northward, protected by heavy artillery and close air support, until they captured Seoul.[25] The corps was". You're talking about multiple corps, then switch to talking about one unnamed corps. Also, before when talking about an individual corps, "corps" was capitalized, now it's not.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Chinese Intervention - should this be "Chinese intervention"? (capitalization)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Stalemate, "against the hilly regions around the "Iron Triangle" region". Regions, region.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * File:Sto1001.jpg in the Occupation section has several deletion nominations that were never finished. Please check these out.
 * I don't know what to make of those discussions, so I am just removing the image for now until they are resolved. — Ed! (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * File:Sto1001.jpg in the Occupation section has several deletion nominations that were never finished. Please check these out.
 * I don't know what to make of those discussions, so I am just removing the image for now until they are resolved. — Ed! (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

For the most part it looks good, just a few tweaks that need to be made. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think all of your concerns have been addressed. Thank you for your thorough review. — Ed! (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)