Article is a GA, looking to get it to FA. Please pay special attention to referencing and sources, they seem to be the biggest obstacle. -
Ed!(talk)21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Per
User:Abraham, B.S., I would like to request to close this peer review, since I currently have an A-class review open for this article. I will reopen a new Peer Review when the A class review is complete. -
Ed!(talk)05:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Kirill Lokshin
A few (mostly stylistic) suggestions:
I'd suggest removing the "(inactive)" fields in the infobox entirely; they're pretty repetetive, and just make the infobox bigger without really adding any information.
The "Active Component/Reserve Component" heading may be better off as "Active and Reserve Component" or something along those lines; the slash is a somewhat peculiar thing to have in a section name.
"Active Component/Reserve Component" is a proper noun to describe the status of the unit according to the Army. If its a terrible issue I can rename the header but it shouldn't be altered. -
Ed!(talk)04:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Is there a reason why the unit citation table is in reverse chronological order while the campaign streamer citation is in chronological order? I would suggest, in any case, removing the two sub-headings and just having the two tables in a single section.