Talk:Liverpool Irish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Liverpool Irish was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 18, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Did You Know
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Merseyside (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.


Some notes and questions (Good Article Nomination)[edit]

I saw this on the Good Article Candidates page and had a looksie. I'm not an expert at all on British military history, but have the following questions/comments:

  • The article notes that the Liverpool Irish saw substantial losses in the Western Front, with over 2,000 dead, wounded, and missing. But how many troops were in the entire unit? If they had a few thousand, then 2,000 men down would be a substantial loss - but if they had >>10,000, it couldn't really be called substantial.
  • Likewise, when it is noted that depletion by losses and transfer caused the Liverpool Irish to be disbanded, it would be interesting to note how many % of troops were left at the time of disbanding.
  • Has the troop had no role in any British post-WWII military conflicts?
  • It would be great to see a Liverpool Irish patch, sleave insignia, or coat of arms. And also maybe a picture of what a caubeen headress looks like.
  • The article seems well written. The article appears factually accurate - it has lots of references, and it appears that most of the references are of some quality. The article seems focused, but I can't say whether this article is sufficiently broad in its coverage. It seems neutral and factual. It appears to be stable. If I knew enough about the subject to evaluate the article's breadth of coverage, I wold probably give the article Good Article status.

-- Patiwat 02:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Some comments in addition to the above by Patiwat, which I agree with.
  • The second and third paragraphs of the lead does not really act as a summary of the article, rather they act as the start of the history section. See WP:LEAD for more details.
  • When the West Lancashire Division was reformed in January 1916 could do with some more explanation. We are told that The 1/8th transferred to the North Lancashire Brigade in February 1915, but are given no indication that the West Lancashire Brigade ever disbanded.
  • The modern role of the unit is mentioned in the lead, but not in the main text. These details should be restated at the end of the article, rather than having it end abruptly at 1967.
  • Other than the matters already stated there appear to be no further barriers to GA status; the article is well-written, well referenced using a number of sources, seems sufficiently broad in coverage to a non-expert, is stable and contains appropriate images. Oldelpaso 14:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

The October 14, 2006 nomination for good article has failed because the above comments by reviewers of this nomination have not been addressed. Please feel free to polish up the article and resubmit it in the future. Neil916 (Talk) 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)