Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Getting Started with the WWII Philippine Divisions  
1 comment  




2 GA Review  
6 comments  


2.1  Criteria  





2.2  Review  



2.2.1  Result  





2.2.2  Discussion  







2.3  Additional notes  
















Talk:102nd Division (Philippines)




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Getting Started with the WWII Philippine Divisions[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Agood 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]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (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.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (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).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [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[edit]

  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
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. 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
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Given the conversations we are having about other WWII articles, are you satisfied that the Japanese perspective has been covered? Neutral Undetermined
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    principally one editor Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. 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[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • 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]

Additional notes[edit]

  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.
  • ^ Either parenthetical referencesorfootnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  • ^ 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.
  • ^ 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.
  • ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  • ^ 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/w/index.php?title=Talk:102nd_Division_(Philippines)&oldid=1195336757"

    Categories: 
    Wikipedia good articles
    Warfare good articles
    GA-Class Philippine-related articles
    Low-importance Philippine-related articles
    WikiProject Philippines articles
    GA-Class United States articles
    Low-importance United States articles
    GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
    WikiProject United States articles
    GA-Class military history articles
    GA-Class Asian military history articles
    Asian military history task force articles
    GA-Class North American military history articles
    North American military history task force articles
    GA-Class Southeast Asian military history articles
    Southeast Asian military history task force articles
    GA-Class United States military history articles
    United States military history task force articles
    GA-Class World War II articles
    World War II task force articles
     



    This page was last edited on 13 January 2024, at 12:37 (UTC).

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki