Talk:Wiltshire Regiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Wiltshire Regiment was a History 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
October 21, 2009 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
January 9, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
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.
WikiProject Wiltshire (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


This page is all wrong. The 1st battalion of the Wilts Regiment was raised in 1756 at Torbay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That was the predecessor formation, the 62nd. I've split the article now to better reflect that they were distinct units. Shimgray | talk | 16:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, three to four good sized paragraphs would be appropriate. The lead should summarize the entire article, without including new information.
    • There are a lot of really short paragraphs in the article, which make it choppy and harder to read. Could some of these be combined?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Web references need to have publishers and access dates added in many cases.
    • There are a bunch of dead links in the references, see here.
  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):
    • I believe the image File:Ginginpainting.jpg needs to specify the painter and the date (or approximate date).
    • Some of your image captions are quite long. Please work to make them more concise.
    • The images appear to be crowded towards the top half of the article, with text sandwiched between images and a general cluttered feeling. However, the bottom half of the article has only one image, and large blocks of text with no images are present. Perhaps move some of the images in the top part of the article to the bottom part?
  7. Overall:

The above is the result of my first pass through the article. Once work has begun on these (especially work on the publishers in web refs and removing the dead links), I will complete a more thorough review of source reliability and prose. Overall, it looks like a nice article, and it's obvious that you've put a lot of work into it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As no work has been completed on this article during the time period of the review, I am failing this article's GA nomination. I look forward to seeing it back at GAN when the above issues have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

99th. Regiment.[edit]

Hello. The 99th. Regiment, besides starting of in Van Diemens Land Tasmania (australia); also was despatched to Western Australia(Swan River Colony) in 1849 approx. Was here in 1850 for maybe 10 years. This does not appear in your chapter, Western Australia, nor makes mention of the fact in the story concerning them in Tasmania.

I am really busy writing a book on some W.A. history and can definitely associate them with this State.

Thank you Kind regards Darrel McGuiness58.167.199.113 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That was a predecessor. See 99th (Lanarkshire) Regiment of Foot. Moonraker (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)