Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [[1]]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [[2]]

• Disambiguations: None found - [3]
• Linkrot: None found - [4]
• Alt text: All images have alt text.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• IMO it is well written and MOS compliant.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• All information is cited to reliable sources and there is no original research that I can find.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Major aspects are covered.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is written from a neutral POV, is a fair representation of events and uses all major works available.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• Although there has been considerable recent work, the article is not subject to an edit war.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• Images are appropriate for the article, and are tagged and captioned;
• Images is a non-free image, but has an appropriate free-use rationale.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Overall this is a another good battlion history. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]