This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
15th Marine Expeditionary Unit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
15th Marine Expeditionary Unit was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
A few redlinks need fixing. Well written. Oldwildbill 14:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
this article is well organized but it could use more references. it has no inline references nor "citation" sections.
Justforasecond 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I dropped by to review this article. It shows a lot of promise, but needs references. See 2nd Battalion 9th Marines for an example of a good article on a military unit to see what I mean. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Rough Draft...
Thank you for working to add the references. It is now a very nicely done article, worthy of the GA status. If you decide to pursue FA status, may I suggest requesting a peer review next? Congratulations! -- CTSWyneken (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
This is just an initial response. If no one works on this then I will have to delete it, if someone does take on the task I will be happy to work with them to immprove it further in the future and get it to GA standard. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 ( talk) 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 18:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
15th Marine Expeditionary Unit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
15th Marine Expeditionary Unit was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
A few redlinks need fixing. Well written. Oldwildbill 14:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
this article is well organized but it could use more references. it has no inline references nor "citation" sections.
Justforasecond 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I dropped by to review this article. It shows a lot of promise, but needs references. See 2nd Battalion 9th Marines for an example of a good article on a military unit to see what I mean. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Rough Draft...
Thank you for working to add the references. It is now a very nicely done article, worthy of the GA status. If you decide to pursue FA status, may I suggest requesting a peer review next? Congratulations! -- CTSWyneken (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
This is just an initial response. If no one works on this then I will have to delete it, if someone does take on the task I will be happy to work with them to immprove it further in the future and get it to GA standard. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 ( talk) 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 18:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!