Talk:1st Prussian Infantry Regiment

1st Prussian Infantry Regiment was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 23, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Military history: European / German / Early Modern / Napoleonic era

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1st Prussian Infantry Regiment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 21:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Initial review

The article has a significant number of redlinks, particularly to 24 battles, but is missing description about Battle in Breslau despite being one of the few linked in the infobox. In general, I am concerned about the WP:DUE weight and overly detailed information.

It is missing citations at least four times.

It has copious details about the composition of the units, as well as details of their uniforms.

This uncited passage sounds like the 1st Foot Guards (German Empire) (not sure) or someone else got mixed up by the two. Either way, it needs to be resolved. The regiment's numeric successor, the 1st Infantry Regiment (1st East Prussian) would later be raised to the status of Grenadiers and serve with distinction until its disbanded in 1919. That regiment's successor, the 1st (East Prussian) Infantry Regiment would then serve in the Reichswehr and Wehrmacht until its final disbandment in 1945.[citation needed]

Non reliable sources

I am not sure how reliable Preussenweb.de is. While German language sources can be used, sources need to either be in scholarly publications, or published by experts. I couldn't find any mention/reference to Reinhard Nelke by other scholars or within English wikipedia except two sparse mentions in the early 2000s. The claims dependent on Preussenweb need to be replaced.

Weasel phrases

Uncited phrases like which had a profound impact on the future of the world as a whole are not encyclopedic. Notably serving? What does that mean? The sections about the Succession/7 year war don't give further insight.

Nitpicks

Avoid WP:EASTER EGGs like Siege of Stettin
Section titles: the 2nd word onward should be lower case unless a proper name like 7 Years' War. So It should be Regimental notes, Regimental chefs, Napoleonic wars, Austrian succession etc..
Unsure what correct grammar here is, but rifled carbines "Büchsen" isn't it. Maybe Carbine rifles?
Per MOS:JOBTITLES do not capitalize officer, surgeon unless it's someone's honorific.
What does [2:2:2] mean?
Gallery can remain where it is, but I think it would be better interwoven in article itself, particularly about uniform colours. That's just my opinion.

Shushugah: FYI that a topic ban of the nominator including this article has been proposed at WP:AN. (t · c) buidhe 03:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They've been indefinitely blocked. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers in the list of battalion members don't add up. The count of 1 Grenadier company and 4 Musketeer companies do not add up to the battalion totals. In the second place, it appears that the total list doesn't include 5 physicians. But in the first place, it seems that a headquarters company is missing consisting of: 5 Officers, 9 NCOs, 3 Drummers, 1 Fifer, 114 Musketeers, and 1 Drum Major.

2601:647:8004:7E50:7017:6D38:F795:C2A8 (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]