# Talk:Fort Greble

Hello, here are my comments following a review for good article criteria.

I'm not sure I like the image in the infobox because it isn't actually of Fort Greble itself.  Seems a bit strange to have "something like what you might have found at Fort Greble" being the main picture.
I haven't been able to find any pictures of the fort in operation, so it was the best I could do. Removed.
Understood.  You could place the image elsewhere, possibly smaller.  It was just misleading in the manner in which was being used originally. The Rambling Man 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I'll be putting that one back in, as well as some pictures of the types of cannons featured at the fort. Any other suggestions?
Why is 1861 wikilinked in the infobox and no other years wikilinked?  I'd unlink it.
Unlinked
For year and page ranges, use the en-dash, per WP:DASH.
Fixed the range in the infobox. Couldn't find any others
Check all the page ranges in the references, they need en-dashes as well. The Rambling Man 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Got 'em. Good eye.
For section headings, don't over-capitalise - see WP:HEAD.
Fixed.
Place citations in accordance with WP:CITE, so on the right-hand side of punctuation where possible and no space between the citation and the punctuation.
Fixed the reference to the defensive perimeter.
Wikilink whole dates per WP:DATE.
Fixed
Consider wikilinking Capitol to assist the non-expert readers.
Fixed
Gen. is abbreviated while Major isn't.  Be consistent (I'd use the full titles).
Fixed
Avoid "hadn't" - use "had not"
Fixed
If possible, wikilink some of the weapon types described e.g. howitzer, mortar etc.
Fixed to the extent that the articles exist. Many of them, such as Field Howitzer, do not exist as separate articles.
Understood, looks better to me. The Rambling Man 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't put external links in the main body (e.g. the link to Fort Greble Recreation Center), they belong in the External links section (per WP:EL)
Done, and wikilinked the name in the main body.
With these in mind, I'll place the GA on hold until they're corrected.  The Rambling Man 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work, I'm promoting to GA now.  Well done. The Rambling Man 14:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A bot  has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article.  If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fort Greble/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.


### GA Sweeps: Kept
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)