Talk:Uniforms of the Confederate States Armed Forces/GA2

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The references do not follow the relevant part of the MoS. The list of footnotes should be first, titled either "Notes" or "Footnotes", and the full references should follow them, in a section titled "References".

   Numerous grammatical and punctuation errors throughout the article. A general absence of commas is particularly noticeable, making the text difficult to read in places.

   Redundant capitalisation throughout the text for military ranks and colours.

   The "Belt" section could be clearer; I get what you're trying to say here, but the term "CS or CSA belt" should be more clearly explained at the beginning of the paragraph. Clarification: It's not that the meaning of the initials is unclear, it's that it is unclear as to what makes a "CSA belt" different from any other sort of belt - I can figure it out from the picture, but it's not clear in the text.

   The section on the CSMC makes it sound as if Russia was a part of the British Empire.

   Possessive apostrophes are not needed in the citations.

   General inconsistent formatting in the citations.

   The detailed references are not in alphabetical order, making them difficult to refer to. Comment: Much better now, but Van Doren is still out of order.

   There is some overlinking in places, with the same term being wiki-linked twice within the same section (notably the naval ranks).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The link in the citation for heatstroke is to a book that does not appear to be related to the subject at hand (and may, therefore, not be a reliable source for it).

   The reference titled "Basic Confederate Uniform" is to a personal webpage, which is not considered a reliable source. It may be appropriate as an External Link, but only if it provides information that could not reasonably be included in the Wikipedia article.

   Video and web citations do not use the correct format.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seems to cover all the pertinent facts.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   A few instances of recent vandalism (but what page doesn't?) but no edit warring.

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):

   Some of the captions could be clearer; the "example of Confederate cavalry uniform", for instance, could be labelled with a more specific description (e.g. rank).

   One of the images is used twice in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article needs a fair bit of work to bring up to standard, especially to grammar and punctuation, but there is no reason that this should not be achievable within one week. Placed on hold.

Further comment: Good work so far, but there are still a number of grammatical errors (for example, in the first and last sentences of the first "Overview" paragraph) and clumsy phrasing, and some of the other problems still need to be addressed. Looks like you'll get this fixed, though! Anaxial (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Final comment: I think we're OK now. But I would suggest a thorough sweep for grammatical and punctuation issues (and general style) before nominating articles for GA in future, as it will save time during the review.Anaxial (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)