Talk:102nd Division (Philippines)

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

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

Agood article is—

1. Well-written:

(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:

(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 violationsorplagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(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.
^[4]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
^[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]

1. Well-written:

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?	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)		Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)		Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)		Pass
(c) (original research)		Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)		Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)		Pass
(b) (focused)		Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Given the conversations we are having about other WWII articles, are you satisfied that the Japanese perspective has been covered?	Undetermined

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
principally one editor	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	all tagged and free	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	captions present	Pass

• 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