Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to be in an unusual situation, as its nominator is topic banned from working further on the topic.[1]
On first pass, the article has a lot of good information, but also seems to have some ways to go to meet the GA criteria. Some issues I immediately see:
- Needs to consolidate lead to four paragraphs per WP:LEAD
- Needs to reduce overuse of single-sentence paragraphs and very short sentences per WP:LAYOUT
- Needs copyediting (The sixth sentence, for example, is a comma splice: "The regiment was intended to be nonpartisan, and began with Catholic recruits accounting for 18% of its soldiers, however due to various circumstances by the end of 1972 this dropped to around 3%." A few paragraphs down is a sentence with no period, etc.) I've tried to fix some of the more obvious errors as I went, but this was only a quick pass and still more needs to be done. Future editors of this article might consider requesting a read by the Guild of Copyeditors before this is renominated.
- "It is doubtful if any other unit of the British Army has ever come under the same sustained criticism as the UDR" -- an opinion this strong probably needs attribution to a specific author, or at least multiple sources, to meet WP:NPOV
- Some statistics lack citation, such as "In time a combination of these factors reduced Catholic soldiers to around 3% of the Regiment's strength."
- The article seems to rely quite heavily on Potter, to the point that it clearly endorses his view over another book and the BBC:
"This is not noted in Adams' Sinn Féin biography[205] and the BBC still insists the assailants were arrested by "plain clothes policemen".[206]" It would be better to note the diverging viewpoints here impartially.
- The article needs work to meet the "concise" criterion (1a); at 69kb of readable prose, it's far longer than needed for a topic of narrow scope.
Given the nominator's situation and some clear issues with the article, I'm not passing it for GA at this time. I hope others may find the above comments useful as a starting point for future revision, however; this would be a great one to get to GA status. Thanks to all who have worked to bring it to this point. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)