Talk:15th Marine Expeditionary Unit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	15th Marine Expeditionary Unit was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 7, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 29, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

15th Marine Expeditionary Unit is was featured on the United States Marine Corps portal as the Selected article. (9 October - 7 November 2006)

Contents 1 Article 2 good article nom 3 Unit awards 4 Unit awards 5 GA Passed 6 GA Sweeps (on hold)

[edit] Article

A few redlinks need fixing. Well written. Oldwildbill 14:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good article nom

this article is well organized but it could use more references. it has no inline references nor "citation" sections.

Justforasecond 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I dropped by to review this article. It shows a lot of promise, but needs references. See 2nd Battalion 9th Marines for an example of a good article on a military unit to see what I mean. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)‎

• Inline refs have been added. — ERcheck (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's looking good. When I have a bit of time, I'll comment a bit more. It is probably close, if not ready, to promote from the quick once over I've done. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unit awards

Rough Draft...

[edit] Unit awards

•   Presidential Unit Citation
•   Korean Service Medal
•   Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
• [[Image:|50px]]   Humanitarian Service Medal with one Bronze Star
• [[Image:|50px]]    Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal

[edit] GA Passed

Thank you for working to add the references. It is now a very nicely done article, worthy of the GA status. If you decide to pursue FA status, may I suggest requesting a peer review next? Congratulations! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review and promotion. — ERcheck (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• Lead is inadequate, does not explain the purpose and time span of the unit. The mission section might well be incorporated into lead and expanded in more detail elsewhere in the article because at the moment it is far for clear what the purpose of the unit is.
• Much more detail about the unit's concept, organisation, development and historical relevance is needed. The article launches into history without giving any context.
• Swathes of the article are unreferenced. I recommend a reference at least once every sentance and further references for any statistics, quotes or anything likely to be challenged.
• Article needs to be updated from February 2007 when it was last significantly added to.
• Article is poorly written, with a lot of short sentances and numerous jargon-heavy phrases which are not well explained.
• Sources are more or less OK, but they could be better laid out and many more are needed.

This is just an initial response. If no one works on this then I will have to delete it, if someone does take on the task I will be happy to work with them to immprove it further in the future and get it to GA standard. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that since no work has been done and the article has significant problems, I am regretfully going to have to delist this from GA. When it is back up to standard please renominate it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)