Talk:Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment/GA1

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead should be a summary of the entire article, with no new information, and therefore generally doesn't need references unless they are backing up a direct quote or a controversial fact.
 * There are a lot of parenthetic inserts, which tend to make the prose choppy. Please try to integrate at least some of these into the main prose.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The tag ends of several paragraphs are missing references.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I would like to see a little more information on the Battle of Fort Washington and the regiment's participation in it. A battle which wipes out most of the regiment is something (IMO) that deserves more than a one sentence blip in the article.
 * 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):
 * Image captions should be concise. The bulk of the information in the captions in this article should be moved to the body (with references) if appropriate, or simply removed if not applicable to the topic.  This will also help with making the text not be sandwiched between images, which is discouraged.
 * Is there no photo to start the article with? If not, that's fine, but it would be nice to have something for the infobox.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I have a few concerns with MOS, references, coverage and images, so I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to address these issues. If you have any questions, drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. As a suggestion for further article improvement, it would be nice to see some more of the information in parentheses be integrated into the text, as there are still quite a few of them.  Nice work on the article! Dana boomer (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)