This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
36th Engineer Brigade (United States) 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 |
36th 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. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While this is a "good" article (and a better article than the 15th), it does not meet the necessary benchmark for a "Good Article".
It's a great read, and definitely shows improvement - I'd encourage a few weeks of dedicated editing and then consider re-nominating this article! :) Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 22:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
For the next revewer, so it doesn't look like I just ignored the above review:
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am going to have to fail this article. There is a major amount of red links, it could stand to be more thouroughly sourced, and it could be expanded. Fix these problems, and then renominate. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 14:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
See this link: [1]...it shows what external links that are in the article are dead/not good. This article has 2 bad links. Cheers, the_ed 17 19:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer ( talk) 18:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Overall, a nice article - I can't believe it has two failed reviews in the past few months - bad luck there! I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with a couple of minor MOS/prose things and one referencing issue. If you have any questions, let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer ( talk) 18:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 36th 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hood.army.mil/36thengbde/Lineage.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.forthoodsentinel.com/articles/2008/04/10/community/welcome_home/welcome03.txt{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www4.army.mil/outreach/calendar/index.php?event_id=4879&r=1{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hood.army.mil/36thengbde/images2/Newsletter1/Rugged%20Times%20Newsletter%20Qtr%204.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
36th Engineer Brigade (United States) 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 |
36th 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. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While this is a "good" article (and a better article than the 15th), it does not meet the necessary benchmark for a "Good Article".
It's a great read, and definitely shows improvement - I'd encourage a few weeks of dedicated editing and then consider re-nominating this article! :) Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 22:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
For the next revewer, so it doesn't look like I just ignored the above review:
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am going to have to fail this article. There is a major amount of red links, it could stand to be more thouroughly sourced, and it could be expanded. Fix these problems, and then renominate. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 14:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
See this link: [1]...it shows what external links that are in the article are dead/not good. This article has 2 bad links. Cheers, the_ed 17 19:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer ( talk) 18:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Overall, a nice article - I can't believe it has two failed reviews in the past few months - bad luck there! I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with a couple of minor MOS/prose things and one referencing issue. If you have any questions, let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer ( talk) 18:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 36th 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hood.army.mil/36thengbde/Lineage.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.forthoodsentinel.com/articles/2008/04/10/community/welcome_home/welcome03.txt{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www4.army.mil/outreach/calendar/index.php?event_id=4879&r=1{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hood.army.mil/36thengbde/images2/Newsletter1/Rugged%20Times%20Newsletter%20Qtr%204.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)