Jump to content

Talk:North Staffordshire Regiment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNorth Staffordshire Regiment has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 9, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
July 8, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Rating and possible improvements

[edit]

I have assessed this article again and believe that it is still a Start class article. There is a lot of information in the article and overall it is well researched and referenced, however, it still needs a few citations in my opinion - I have added tags where I feel that they are needed. If the majority of these can be added in (one or two missing citations can probably be accepted for a successful B class review in my opinion), I believe that the article can be promoted to B class.

I have done a brief copy edit and fixed a few things that I feel needed fixing, however, a couple of other improvements that I would suggest are as follows:

  • Supporting materials: are there any images that could be added to illustrate the article?
  • Introduction: I probably wouldn't use the quote in the introduction. That is just my opinion, though. Whilst it is interesting, I don't believe it really adds to the introduction, which is really meant to summarise the whole article. Perhaps you could move the quote to the last section in the article and use it as a summary of the regiment's service?

Just a couple of ideas. I will leave the rating as it is, but if the citations can be added, I would be more than happy to promote it to a B class. If you would like more in-depth comments on improvements, you might like to add it to the list at peer review (WP:MHPR). Hope this helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion I have is to merge the two battle honours sections you have for WWI and WWII together and include a list of all of the Regiment's battle honours there. I notice you mention a couple of battle honours won before or between the World Wars — Hafir, South Africa 1900–1902 and Afghanistan 1919, were there any others? For an example of the format I am suggesting, please see 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. This is just a suggestion, though, and whether or not you do this wouldn't impact upon promotion of the article in my opinion. I just think it would help improve readability. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken thus idea up (slightly more honours than 2 RAR :-) ) NtheP (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The battle honours need references. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 18:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've referenced the list but not one for each honour, the reference list would be far too long NtheP (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, well done. I think a single citation for the whole list of battle honours is fine in this case, otherwise there would be a lot of citations. I have changed the rating of the article to a B class now. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

Hi, mate. I noticed that you have nominated this for GA. Just a couple of suggestions while you wait for the review to happen. I'd suggest trying to expand the lead a little if possible. That is something that I've had pointed out to me in the two GAs I have worked on. It can be up to four paragraphs long. Also I'd try maybe to find one or two more images to break up the text, although I imagine that it has not been very easy to find images that can be used. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good now. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:North Staffordshire Regiment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be reviewing this article! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've now finished the review, and the article will pass, subject to a few issues being addressed. Most of these relate only to clarifying small points in the text, and I've placed hidden comments in the text detailing my queries etc.
All addressed, I think NtheP (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only other thing I'd like to suggest is that in the "Battle Honours" section, another way be found to indicate those honours which are carried on the colours. The current ALL CAPS system looks rather clunky. Perhaps use asterisks to indicate those which are on the colours. Or bold? MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This came up as part of the B class review where others thought the use of bold was clunky :) Looking at other unit pages, where the differentiation between those honours carrfied on the colours and those not is made the use of capitals does seem to be the most commonly used method. Perhaps something for discussion in WP:MILMOS? NtheP (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, leave it as it is! Only a minor point anyway. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
will do. Will probably raise in WP:MILMOS anyway. NtheP (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of [ this version]:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on North Staffordshire Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Staffordshire_Regiment&oldid=1213273479"