Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Wiltshire Regiment

Wiltshire Regiment

I would like to get this article peer reviewed. First unit article I have done (well expanded, I did not start it from scratch). Want to see where I need improvements. --HistorianBell 11:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D

This article is off to a good start. My suggestions for further improvements are:

• The small sections should probably be combined together so they're at least two or three paras in length

Fixed most of those. Will make another pass through.--HistorianBell 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• The article needs more references so that all text is covered by a reference

Getting more cites together to cover. (Why do I return library books?) --HistorianBell 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• There seem to be some missing years in the regiment's history (eg, 1849 to 1854). More generally, there seems to be lots of scope to expand upon the Regiment's history.

Fixed that, then realized that I need to put in something about the Boer War (yes, somehow I missed a rather large one there.)--HistorianBell 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Are there any pictures you could include?

Added a few, looking for more. (Damnable copyright laws!-only half joking)--HistorianBell 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• There should be some text explaining the 99th Duke of Edinburgh's (Lanarkshire) Regiment of Foot's relationship with this regiment. A 'family tree' type diagram tracing the regiment's lineage would be excellent if you have the data to create one (it's a shame that regiments.org is no longer active). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Added "family tree" for the regiment. Their relationship was all due to Mr. Cardwell. Looking to see fi there is more to it.--HistorianBell 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Just a couple of things at the moment as I'm a bit short of time:

• The headings should not be capitalised the way the are. "Post-War and Amalgamation" should be "Post-war and amalgamation";

Changed--HistorianBell 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Every paragraph requires an in-line citation for a B class rating, more if multiple sources are used or challengable assertions are made (e.g. quantities, values or dates, etc);

Think I have it all cited. Don't think I have any challengeable assertions going. --HistorianBell 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the images could be aligned to the left;

Move them about a bit. --HistorianBell 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• The battle honours section could be formatted so that it is a bit more visually appealing. At the moment it just looks a bit bland. Maybe some bullet points and bolding could help? Also, you could wikilink the battles;

Linked as many as I could. (British battle honours and wiki articles do not match up as conveniently as they should. Bad War Office, bad!)--HistorianBell 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text could be added to the images per WP:ALT;

Added--HistorianBell 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway that is it so far. Hopes this helps. Good work so far. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. --HistorianBell 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)