Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article20th Engineer Brigade (United States) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2008 Good article nomineeListed

Refs

Words of advice: Please merge identical references like this: create a ref name using the syntax <ref name="Example">[http://example.com/ Title example]</ref> then wherever that reference comes up, instead of copying out the whole text just add <ref name="Example"/> and it will appear as one in the references section.-- The Dominator ( talk) 04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Also I have seen instances where double punctuation is used around references sort of like: "bla bla, [1]. bla bla", note according to WP:CITE and WP:MoS refs go after punctuation.-- The Dominator ( talk) 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
All right. I did not know how to do that with the sources. As for the citations, are they supposed to go after all punctuation, or just sentence-ending stuff? - Ed! ( talk) 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
All right, both tasks are  Done - Ed! ( talk) 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
OK, I don't really want to review this article as it wouldn't be fair to the others that have put up articles before, but I'll give you my general impression; Overall, I think the article stands a good chance of passing, a few things: the first and third paragraphs of the lead should be expanded, the paragraphs in the section "Vietnam War and aftermath" are rather on the short side and should either be expanded or merged with each other. Lastly the "Legacy" section could be expanded because currently it seems to just list notable members of the brigade, maybe renaming it to "Notable soldiers" or something of the sort would help. Best of luck, and if nobody reviews it in two weeks, then I'll do it.-- The Dominator ( talk) 23:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm at least a bit familiar with military, but somebody who is not could use a short sentence on what it is that an engineer brigade actually does, I suggest adding it to the lead right after the "assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps." after which I would put something like "where they assisted in...". Also I suggest adding the pic of Al Gore into the legacy section since that is where he is mentioned and the images are sort of clustered up there.-- The Dominator ( talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your recommendations. I've generally enhanced the article in most of the ways you suggested, I've tried to keep the format of the article identical to 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States), which I also nominated for GA status. - Ed! ( talk) 18:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It's looking really good, the only thing is the legacy section, it needs to be either expanded, or if expansion is impossible then either renamed to "Famous soldiers" or something to that affect or alternatively integrated into the rest of the article.-- The Dominator ( talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I went looking for popular culture references to the unit, but there really aren't any that I could find. I think it looks all around good now, hopefully it will get approved in the next few weeks. - Ed! ( talk) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ aaa

Ah what the hell (GA review)

  1. Well Written? Pass Prose is engaging and appropriate for Wikipedia, too much copyediting never ruined an article so I suggest getting one from a really good copyeditor, there aren't any major flaws that I see.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable? Pass Pretty much same as the prose, easily passes GA, but could use work for FA, in the future, I would like to see a link to a printed source if one is available. I would also like to see a source for the honors.
  3. Broad in its coverage? Pass There is pretty much nothing that I would add to this article, which is a good thing. I would like to see a legacy or fame section eventually, but if the info isn't available, oh well, not vital.
  4. Neutral? Pass without hesitation
  5. Stable? Pass Fine there.
  6. Images? Pass Great use of images, just one thing, the image of Robert B. Flowers seems slightly out of place where it is now as he isn't even mentioned there.
  • Overall I pass this article which is undoubtedly a GA, some minor improvements are needed if it was ever taken to FA, though.-- The Dominator ( talk) 05:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

CURRENT CHANGES TO THE PAGE

I am currently the Public Affairs Officer for the 20th Engineer Brigade (Combat)(Airborne). The recent changes made to this page are approved by the Brigade Commander, COL Deluca. I respectfully request the changes not be "undone" as these changes were made on behalf of the unit and the command team.

214.13.149.10 ( talk) 05:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The article has already passed a GA nomination, identifying it as high quality in its current state. The changes you have made will reduce its Wikipedia quality drastically. Unless your rewrite retains all of the sources, interwiki links, and style format, it runs the risk of violating Wikipedia's rule on Conflict of Interest, as the sources of the article must ensure that it retains a neutral point of view. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame) 16:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I have reverted the changes, they really are awful in terms of wikipedia quality. They fail half the guidelines for writing an article and read like a copyvio from an official army page. Please note that the page is to inform those who want to find out about the unit, not to 'big up' the unit itself...we present facts, let the rest speak for itself. Narson ( talk) 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I will work to make it less like a "big up" for the unit and will include interwiki links. However, can you tell me what the wiki-quality assessment is based on? The current page is very outdated and incomplete, dating back to 2004; so it seems that accuracy and completeness are not one of the criteria for a "GA".

The article has no information past 2005, this is true. It could use information pretaining to recent events, but the information within it must be sourced using parenthetical citations (see WP:CITE) because without sources, the information can be challenged as invalid. It is one of the requirements for the article's quality (which by the way, can be found at WP:GACR) You are welcome to add more information to the page anywhere, as long as it is sourced and non-biased. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame) 18:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Awarded Valorous Unit award. (Mar 2013)

Someone with a bit more knowledge on the subject could give it a read and edit the page accordingly if it should, it would be great. I'm just bringing it to your attention. Referance: http://i.imgur.com/QqnnZYb.jpg 58.174.241.157 ( talk) 21:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 20th Engineer Brigade (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 20th Engineer Brigade (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:20th_Engineer_Brigade_(United_States)&oldid=1196967948"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article20th Engineer Brigade (United States) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2008 Good article nomineeListed

Refs

Words of advice: Please merge identical references like this: create a ref name using the syntax <ref name="Example">[http://example.com/ Title example]</ref> then wherever that reference comes up, instead of copying out the whole text just add <ref name="Example"/> and it will appear as one in the references section.-- The Dominator ( talk) 04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Also I have seen instances where double punctuation is used around references sort of like: "bla bla, [1]. bla bla", note according to WP:CITE and WP:MoS refs go after punctuation.-- The Dominator ( talk) 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
All right. I did not know how to do that with the sources. As for the citations, are they supposed to go after all punctuation, or just sentence-ending stuff? - Ed! ( talk) 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
All right, both tasks are  Done - Ed! ( talk) 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
OK, I don't really want to review this article as it wouldn't be fair to the others that have put up articles before, but I'll give you my general impression; Overall, I think the article stands a good chance of passing, a few things: the first and third paragraphs of the lead should be expanded, the paragraphs in the section "Vietnam War and aftermath" are rather on the short side and should either be expanded or merged with each other. Lastly the "Legacy" section could be expanded because currently it seems to just list notable members of the brigade, maybe renaming it to "Notable soldiers" or something of the sort would help. Best of luck, and if nobody reviews it in two weeks, then I'll do it.-- The Dominator ( talk) 23:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm at least a bit familiar with military, but somebody who is not could use a short sentence on what it is that an engineer brigade actually does, I suggest adding it to the lead right after the "assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps." after which I would put something like "where they assisted in...". Also I suggest adding the pic of Al Gore into the legacy section since that is where he is mentioned and the images are sort of clustered up there.-- The Dominator ( talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your recommendations. I've generally enhanced the article in most of the ways you suggested, I've tried to keep the format of the article identical to 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States), which I also nominated for GA status. - Ed! ( talk) 18:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It's looking really good, the only thing is the legacy section, it needs to be either expanded, or if expansion is impossible then either renamed to "Famous soldiers" or something to that affect or alternatively integrated into the rest of the article.-- The Dominator ( talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I went looking for popular culture references to the unit, but there really aren't any that I could find. I think it looks all around good now, hopefully it will get approved in the next few weeks. - Ed! ( talk) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ aaa

Ah what the hell (GA review)

  1. Well Written? Pass Prose is engaging and appropriate for Wikipedia, too much copyediting never ruined an article so I suggest getting one from a really good copyeditor, there aren't any major flaws that I see.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable? Pass Pretty much same as the prose, easily passes GA, but could use work for FA, in the future, I would like to see a link to a printed source if one is available. I would also like to see a source for the honors.
  3. Broad in its coverage? Pass There is pretty much nothing that I would add to this article, which is a good thing. I would like to see a legacy or fame section eventually, but if the info isn't available, oh well, not vital.
  4. Neutral? Pass without hesitation
  5. Stable? Pass Fine there.
  6. Images? Pass Great use of images, just one thing, the image of Robert B. Flowers seems slightly out of place where it is now as he isn't even mentioned there.
  • Overall I pass this article which is undoubtedly a GA, some minor improvements are needed if it was ever taken to FA, though.-- The Dominator ( talk) 05:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

CURRENT CHANGES TO THE PAGE

I am currently the Public Affairs Officer for the 20th Engineer Brigade (Combat)(Airborne). The recent changes made to this page are approved by the Brigade Commander, COL Deluca. I respectfully request the changes not be "undone" as these changes were made on behalf of the unit and the command team.

214.13.149.10 ( talk) 05:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The article has already passed a GA nomination, identifying it as high quality in its current state. The changes you have made will reduce its Wikipedia quality drastically. Unless your rewrite retains all of the sources, interwiki links, and style format, it runs the risk of violating Wikipedia's rule on Conflict of Interest, as the sources of the article must ensure that it retains a neutral point of view. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame) 16:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I have reverted the changes, they really are awful in terms of wikipedia quality. They fail half the guidelines for writing an article and read like a copyvio from an official army page. Please note that the page is to inform those who want to find out about the unit, not to 'big up' the unit itself...we present facts, let the rest speak for itself. Narson ( talk) 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I will work to make it less like a "big up" for the unit and will include interwiki links. However, can you tell me what the wiki-quality assessment is based on? The current page is very outdated and incomplete, dating back to 2004; so it seems that accuracy and completeness are not one of the criteria for a "GA".

The article has no information past 2005, this is true. It could use information pretaining to recent events, but the information within it must be sourced using parenthetical citations (see WP:CITE) because without sources, the information can be challenged as invalid. It is one of the requirements for the article's quality (which by the way, can be found at WP:GACR) You are welcome to add more information to the page anywhere, as long as it is sourced and non-biased. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame) 18:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Awarded Valorous Unit award. (Mar 2013)

Someone with a bit more knowledge on the subject could give it a read and edit the page accordingly if it should, it would be great. I'm just bringing it to your attention. Referance: http://i.imgur.com/QqnnZYb.jpg 58.174.241.157 ( talk) 21:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 20th Engineer Brigade (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 20th Engineer Brigade (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:20th_Engineer_Brigade_(United_States)&oldid=1196967948"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE