Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/3rd Bombay European Regiment

3rd Bombay European Regiment

I need this article to be peer-reviewed to check its neutrality and style, if it conforms to Wiki-standards. Also, is more info required. This is about all I can get. Most of it's common in all sources I checked....--MT (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney

Needs more references throughout and the Formation section is unreferenced.
Also needs a copy edit a lot of the language is stilted.
creating the army of the East India Company – was this not the Bombay Army or the Presidency armies ?
Bombay Regiment by 1808 had grown to a strength of 26,500, comprising 6,500 British troops and 20,000 local troops – are you sure this is correct for a regiment ? or is it the Bombay Army as above.
Indian Mutiny of 1857 – thats what I have always called it by our Indian friends now prefer Indian Rebellion of 1857 mutiny could be a bit POV depending on what side your on.
The image of Hugh Rose in the Rahatgarh section needs Alt text.
The first use of C.O. should be Commanding Officer (CO).
Lt. Col should be Lieutenant Colonel for the first use.
The 3rd Europeans suffered a toll of 5 wounded. – Is that a typo
In the Garhakota section link sepoys
I know what you mean but they did not get R&R at the time I would change it for a more historical term.
I would change the wording for red and blue uniform worn by troops in England and the world over – some nations used other coloured uniforms.
There are a lot of POV statements like – inflicted atrocious injuries , brave tactical force , formidable city of Jhansi
link 24th Bombay Native Infantry and the first use of military ranks on their first use.
Union Jack should be Union Flag and linked, its also not an English flag.
Victoria Cross and mentioned in dispatches should be linked.
The convert template could be used instead of marching for five miles – marching for 5 miles (8.0 km)
Reference 31 needs the cite web template.

A good start well done --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey

Citations are placed immediately after punctuation with no spaces in between, and no spaces between grouped citations YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

Good work so far. Here are my comments:

Some of the citations seem to be to letters (e.g. Citation # 25 "Cpt Forrest to Lt. Col. Liddell"). I'm not sure that these would be considered to be acceptable per the referencing guidelines. Generally third party sources are preferred (e.g. a book, or website).
The headings should not be capitalised as they are. For example, "The Seige of Jhansi Resumes" should be "The siege of Jhansi resumes" (note also there is a typo in "seige");
Citation 18 needs more detail: "Casualty report, Siege of Jhansi (April 16, 1858)" does not provide enough detail for readers to locate this document and check it. Is it available in a book or a website?
Date format for DDMMYYYY should not have commas in it per WP:MOS (there is an instance where you include commas in the Lohari and Post munity sections;
As a general rule within the military history project, for a B class rating and article requires at least one citation per paragraph (at the end of the paragraph if the citation covers the whole paragraph), or more if necessary. Without this, the article would probably be considered to be start class even though the content seems good enough for a B class;
Battle honour could be linked;
the date formats used in the citations (Month Day, Year) are incosistent with the rest of the article (Day Month Year). — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87

The lede is quite good, although I question the use of 'they' to refer to the regiment; I haven't seen that used before, either on wikipedia or in sources. Suggest 'It', 'the regiment' etc.
Picture for the infobox would be good; for these articles it's traditionally the colours of the regiment or a picture of a major action. The colours of the 109th might be acceptable if none for the Regiment can be found.
'Between 1796 and 1798 this army was twice reorganized, becoming a formidable force' - Not sure of this sentence's neutrality. How was it 'formidable'? Can we get a cite for that if it is going to remain?
'The Bombay Army by 1808 had grown to a strength of 26,500, comprising 6,500 British troops and 20,000 local troops' - I would start with 'By 1808 the Bombay Army...'
'In this early part of the 19th century locally raised cavalry also increased the effectiveness of the Bombay Regiment.' And I would add this on with a semi-colon rather than as a new sentence, and also replace 'this early part' with 'the early...' as it sounds too informal at present.
'The officers of the Bombay Army were trained in Addiscombe, Surrey, England or recruited from direct appointment.' - What does 'direct appointment' mean?
'In 1853 the East India Company further increased the size of the force and created the third infantry regiment on 15 November 1853.' - What was the second regiment, and when was it formed? I'd also reword to '...and created a third infantry regiment...'
'However, the relative peace they acquired was broken by the Indian Rebellion of 1857' - 'Enjoyed' seems a better word than 'acquired' in this context.
In the 'Rahatgarh' section you use several different names/titles for the regiment - I'd suggest sticking to one, either the full title, a shortened one, or even just 'the regiment'.
'On 26 January 1858, the 3rd Bombay Europeans commenced the preparation for the siege by helping with the placement of the artillery in difficult terrain' - This is the first mention of a siege - can we have a few more details to give context?
'Following severe bombardment of the fort, on 28 January' - 'Following a severe bombardment...'
'They discovered that their 500 strong enemy had escaped, but before doing so had inflicted atrocious injuries on the European women who had been caught up in the siege.' - Not quite sure of the neutrality of 'atrocious injuries' here; not really asking for more detail, but would suggest a more neutral wording.
I've just realized that 'the enemy' is mentioned several times, but never really specified; who were they? Obviously mutineers, but surely they came in several different groupings? Details are needed.
'The 3rd Bombay Europeans charged and drove the enemy out of the thick jungle.[5] This was quickly followed by the 3rd Bombay Europeans occupying the fort at Barodia' - This is rather stilted with the repetition of the regiment's full name; suggest creating a longer sentence and again cutting down on the regiments full name. A generic 'the regiment' would be fine for most cases.
'In his report back to England, Sir Hugh Rose singled out the 3rd Bombay Europeans and their C.O. Lt. Col. Liddell for praise.' - 'Co.O' is quite jargony, suggest spelling it out, and Liddell should have been mentioned earlier as the regimental commander.
'5 men of the 3rd Europeans were injured in the engagement' - I believe the MoS calls for numbers to be spelt out in letters at the start of a sentence.
'By 9 February, the 3rd Bombay Europeans were once more heading for action as part of the force to attack Garhakota' - What is Garhorkta, and where is it located?
'Once they had pitched camp near the fort, the enemy started a bombardment of round shot and rockets.' - Mixed context, makes it sound like it was enemy camping at the fort.
'The rebel sepoys of the 51st and 52nd Bengal regiments advanced in force towards the guns of the horse artillery' - What horse artillery?
'This new battle uniform was developed by the Regiment itself to create stone-coloured cotton shirts and trousers' - Repetition of 'new battle uniform', and I doubt it was quite called that; suggest rewording as something like: 'This consisted of stone-coloured cotton shirts and trousers.'
'This was possibly the first time any British unit was permitted to wear a khaki uniform' - That'll definitely require a citation.
'The experiment was deemed to have worked as the 3rd Bombay European Regiment became known as the "Brassheads" in recognition of their ability to withstand the high temperatures of India' - I'm not sure about this sentence. How does a nickname show they could withstand heat, and more importantly how is the nickname related to the uniform?
'At the pass of Mundinpur' - 'The Mundinpar pass'
'The 3rd Bombay European Regiment and the Hyderabad Contingent drew the attack' - 'Drew the attack' is rather awkwardly phrased, and I'd suggest detailing the other units in the Brigader earlier on, to give more context with whom the regiment was fighting alongside.
'The defences of Jhansi and its fort were reported to look impregnable and the battle plan involved taking the city prior to an attack on the fort.' - This doesn't make sense to me - how can the place look impregnable, and then the plan be to take the city and then the fort?
'The enemy too kept up their matchlock and round shot fire' - Reword, they didn't fire matchlocks.
'but the logistics of battle were kicking in and the continued availability of ammunition was becoming critical' - Too informally worded, and also awkwardly written.
'On 31 March, a force of 20,000 troops of the enemy was reported to be making their way to attack the British and relieve the city' - Again, who were 'the enemy'?
'With the capture of Jhansi previously looking imminent, Sir Hugh Rose then concluded that the relieving 20,000 strong force commanded by Tantia Tope combined with the 11,000 still in the city and fort would outnumber his own force. Rose had little option but to now defend his position on two fronts.' - This is just confusing, a mixture of tenses means I can't be sure of what this means. I think this needs to be reworded to something like 'With the capture of Jhansi now being delayed past his previous expectations, and the arrival of the 20,000-strong reinforcement force, Rose had little option but to defend his position on two fronts.' You also need to detaail who Tope is, and give the size of the garrison and reinforcing troops before this.

That's about all I can do at the moment, as it's getting difficult to read. I assume the original writer doesn't have english as a first language. No problems there, but it means the language is stilted and often confusing to the reader, and also quite vague. If you can let me know when these initial points have been addressed, and the entire article gone through for prose, grammar and made less vague in the details I've suggested above, I'd be more than happy to read through the rest. Skinny87 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]