89th Military Police 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 Date Process Result July 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) United States: Military history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

This review is transcluded from Talk:89th Military Police Brigade (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

First read through suggests that a good copyedit and check for neutrality is needed

1. Please check spelling, lots of mistakes. Please check capitalisation: brigade, corps, military police etc. seem to be caps or lowercase almost at random. Eg consecutive sentences The brigade is subordinate to... and The Brigade contains...
2. Is "headquarters" a verb – several occurrences of headquartered?

   Yes, to be "headquartered at" is the same as being "located at" a place. - Ed! ^(talk) _{(Hall of Fame)} 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

3. Regular Army is a disamb page Done
4. activated as a group what's a group - no link or gloss, and I don't know in this context?
5. However, as the brigade was a supporting unit, it never saw combat. However, it Done
6. However, it did receive every single campaign streamer that was awarded for Vietnam sercive. (sic) didn’t any other units get any? Done
7. Post Cold War Hyphen? Done
8. support of US Army missions everywhere really? Done
9. Joint Task Force is a disamb page Done
10. Rhode Island National Guard is a disamb page Done
11. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" quotation marks? In some articles it's written between quotes, but inconsistent, so probably OK as is.

    Where does this occur? - Ed! ^(talk) _{(Hall of Fame)} 02:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

12. Iraqi Theater caps suggest there's a play showing Done
13. multiple casualties, two (or four if you count non-combat) is stretching the meaning of multiple - bit pov Done
14. Williiam Steele was acquitted of aiding the enemy, but sentenced to 2 years confinement on other charges. pov/careless Done

I'll have another read and check the refs tomorrow, but there's a fair bit for you do for now. jimfbleak ( talk) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Second read

1. item 1 above still needs doing - if you use Firefox, it's worth downloading an in-line dictionary to help pick up typos.
2. item 4 still to be done Done
3. earning every campaign streamer. - fixed in text, but not intro Done
4. Brigade....was in charge of over 5,000 military police soldiers reads oddly to me, comprised maybe Done
5. ref 1 doesn't say it's published by Fort Hood staff, but does have an apparent author "Site maintained by SGT Stephenson" Done
6. ref 4 is an Excel worksheet, should indicate that in ref since not html
7. ref 7 - why is this a reliable source "Gilflink.mil" give no indication of publisher? Done

   My mistake- I linked to the list which is actually part of gulflink.mil, part of the US Military Force Health Protection and Readiness program. Link to the website's main page here.

8. Gilmore ref has no title and is missing final ] Done
9. ref 11 for William Steele is out-of -date, we know the results of the trial now Done
10. Is it possible to give a ref each for the "honors" and "streamers" sections? Done

That's everything now, jimfbleak ( talk) 06:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I've fixed the excel link, so you just need to copyedit, and we're about done. jimfbleak ( talk) 06:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Although I'm not the main article editor, I was ghosting around WP and saw that you needed a spell checker here. I've got a spell check on my Mozilla browser, so I took a quick run through the article. Hope this helped! Dana boomer ( talk) 19:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I did a copy-edit myself. How does it look now? - Ed! ^(talk) _{(Hall of Fame)} 19:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Final stages

I did a final copy edit - mostly dropping incorrect capitalisation, two typos, changed "theatre" back to "theater" (unless you prefer the British spelling?) and changed the link for that word to point to the warfare use rather than the playhouse! OK, let's do it.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 89th Military Police 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307030334/http://pao.hood.army.mil/89thMPBde/index.htm to http://pao.hood.army.mil/89thmpbde/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518225912/http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jun2007/a060507tj1.html to http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jun2007/a060507tj1.html

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) 03:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply