Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gloucestershire Regiment/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2018 [1].


Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the UK's more unassuming regiments, now history, which was unique for wearing a back badge on its headdress after one of its antecedent regiments fought back to back in Egypt. It fought in the Second Boer War and both world wars, and achieved for itself both fame and the American Presidential Unit Citation at the Battle of the Imjin River during the Korean War. A peer review did not receive too much attention, but the article received a closer inspection in its successful MilHist A class review. I'm hoping it's FA quality now. Factotem (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

For the record, I replaced the lead image again, and added an image of the back badge at the bottom of the infobox, after first checking with Nikkimaria here that there was no issue with licensing. Factotem (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7

All looks very good. Some suggestions:

  • Don't abbreviate "March" in the infobox
  • anniversary of the 61st Regiment's victory at Chillianwallah when overseas, or on the anniversary of that regiment's victory at Salamanca when at home What dates were these?
  • "The name arises from an incident in 1764" Use "arose" to keep in the past tense
  • "also awarded to the 1st and 2nd volunteer battalions" Should be "Volunteer Battalions"
  • "the only German offensive that year" should be "the only German offensive on the Western Front that year"
  • The link for "Entrenching Battalions" should span both words ie Entrenching Battalions
  • Link George VI, Soviet Union
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have accommodated all your suggestions into the article. Factotem (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • General point: A number of the refs carry sometimes lengthy additioinal texts. If these texts merely summarise what's in the source, thay aren't necessary. If they are offering further information on material in the sources, such explanations would be better placed in the article text, or in the "Footnotes" – otherwise why have a "Footnotes" section?
    I've moved nearly all refnotes into article text, footnotes or ether. Would you indulge me the three short refnotes remaining?
  • Refs 33, 34, 35: Surely, "The Long, Long Trail" is the name of the website, not part of the title? There is also a reliability issue with this website, as it appears to be "a personal website, born in 1996 and developed as a hobby ever since". Although the site's writer is a published author, the site itself does not seem to have editorial oversight or professional moderation.
    I'm surprised that it's not considered reliable, given that the author is now a full time researcher, but the information sourced to that website was not essential to this article, and I removed it.
  • Ref 57: You need to state that the publisher of the website is The National Archives. In what part of the website are the casualty figures quoted in the accompanying note to be found?
    Good catch. I wrote that on the first attempt at this article in 2016. I remember thinking then that it won't pass muster, but took a long break and forgot about it. Replaced with a better source.
  • Ref 84: being very pedantic, "Imperal War Museums" is plural
    Pluralised.
  • Ref 88: You don't need a retrieval date for a link to a facsimile book. The book, not the facilitating website, is your source.
    Removed.

Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably make an argument that the Long, Long Trail is reliable. I've seen it cited by several other sources while researching war memorials. But I'd still be sceptical of anything I couldn't source elsewhere (besides minor details that might have been neglected by other sources in summarising). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's not reliable, but the question is whether it meets our quality standards, given that it is a confessed hobby site and the work of a single writer. If there is evidence that it has been recommended by an authorative source such as a journal or institution, then it could pass muster, perhaps. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges

edit


  • Support I have been following this article as I served as an officer in the regiment just before its amalgamation. I made a few edits when it was quite a short start class article in 2014 and have been very impressed by the edits made by User:Factotem who took over from the already sterling work done by User:Dormskirk. I believe that it meets the different criteria and also agree with the removal of the non-free image that I added to the article following the explanation given by the nominator. From my personal knowledge of the regiment (my father also served with the Glosters) I believe the information given is accurate and comprehensive. Well done! Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.