Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Getting Started with the WWII Philippine Divisions

Thanks for everyone's patience. I added these pages because there was no reference for these WWII units at all. I fixed one up and then essentially carbon copied it for the other missing Division pages. Then I became ill before I could go any further with them. I will continue to try to fill in more data and sources and proper citations and references as this year (2017) closes out.

Please feel free to amend or correct. I will add more also as I am able. I also intend to add pages for each commanding general of the early WWII Philippine Divisions as I am able. Thanks for your reviews and concerns; they are appreciated. Mluklu7 ( talk) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:102nd Division (Philippines)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 ( talk · contribs) 17:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article in the next day or two. auntieruth (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. [1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); [2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. [6]

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) would you have a look at the invasion section? I'm not sure who Morse is, and the action description is confusing. Perhaps shorter sentences. Links to main article? Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (MoS) Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Given the conversations we are having about other WWII articles, are you satisfied that the Japanese perspective has been covered? Neutral Undetermined
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    principally one editor Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) all tagged and free Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) captions present Pass Pass

Result

Result Notes
Pass Pass pending editor's review of questions raised about clarity in section 1

Discussion

  • I mentioned Morse in the 'Organization' section. Could you kindly point out some of the sentences that you find problematic? Kges1901 ( talk) 20:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I see it now. first sentence of Japanese invasion is confusing. Maybe break into two? auntieruth (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I have reduced the size of the sentence, I don't think that the report itself matters. Kges1901 ( talk) 17:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The Japanese perspective has been covered since the US official history I used as a source incorporated material gained from Japanese documents after the end of the war. Kges1901 ( talk) 21:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Additional notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:102nd_Division_(Philippines)&oldid=1195336757"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Getting Started with the WWII Philippine Divisions

Thanks for everyone's patience. I added these pages because there was no reference for these WWII units at all. I fixed one up and then essentially carbon copied it for the other missing Division pages. Then I became ill before I could go any further with them. I will continue to try to fill in more data and sources and proper citations and references as this year (2017) closes out.

Please feel free to amend or correct. I will add more also as I am able. I also intend to add pages for each commanding general of the early WWII Philippine Divisions as I am able. Thanks for your reviews and concerns; they are appreciated. Mluklu7 ( talk) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:102nd Division (Philippines)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 ( talk · contribs) 17:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article in the next day or two. auntieruth (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. [1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); [2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. [6]

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) would you have a look at the invasion section? I'm not sure who Morse is, and the action description is confusing. Perhaps shorter sentences. Links to main article? Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (MoS) Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Given the conversations we are having about other WWII articles, are you satisfied that the Japanese perspective has been covered? Neutral Undetermined
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    principally one editor Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) all tagged and free Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) captions present Pass Pass

Result

Result Notes
Pass Pass pending editor's review of questions raised about clarity in section 1

Discussion

  • I mentioned Morse in the 'Organization' section. Could you kindly point out some of the sentences that you find problematic? Kges1901 ( talk) 20:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I see it now. first sentence of Japanese invasion is confusing. Maybe break into two? auntieruth (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I have reduced the size of the sentence, I don't think that the report itself matters. Kges1901 ( talk) 17:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The Japanese perspective has been covered since the US official history I used as a source incorporated material gained from Japanese documents after the end of the war. Kges1901 ( talk) 21:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Additional notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:102nd_Division_(Philippines)&oldid=1195336757"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE