Talk:Battle of Caloocan/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth - I don't want to step on your toes here, but I just gave the article a quick skim and the link for the 20th Kansas Regiment is almost certainly incorrect - the linked article was an emergency unit mobilized for a month in 1864 that would not have carried over to the 1890s. (It was also, at least in theory, a state unit, not a United States unit, although it did serve to some extent under a United States overall commander). The 1st Nebraska link also looks wrong, as it's linked to a Civil War unit that wouldn't have carried over to the 1890s wars. See, for instance, the distinguishment between 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment (1898) and 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment. Hog Farm Talk 15:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been corrected. Hog Farm Talk 18:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (
    lists
    )
    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
talk) 17:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
All those changes look great. Passing this now! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]