Talk:Special Troops Battalion, 10th Mountain Division/GA1

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is inadequate - firstly there is information in there that doesn't appear in the article itself. Secondly the sentences should be fully expanded to give a clear picture of the unit's role and history.
 * Expanded the lead and organized it to look better. — Ed! (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This is by far the article's biggest problem - apart from a few lines in the lead, this article gives no sense of how this battalion is organised, what its role within the division is and what its principal duties are. This information requires a full developed section of its own before the article can be considered complete.
 * Added the "organization" section. — Ed! (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kiska is listed in the infobox as a battle that the unit fought in, but this is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
 * That was a copying error. Removed. — Ed! (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * I Have responded to all of your concerns. — Ed! (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I Have responded to all of your concerns. — Ed! (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * Ref 8 is used repeatedly within one paragraph. I recommend reducing its use to two or three at the most to improve readability.


 * I think these have all been taken care of and I'm happy to pass the article now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)