Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal Gloucestershire Hussars/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2018 [1].

Royal Gloucestershire Hussars[edit]

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Gloucestershire Hussars was a yeomanry regiment that had a fairly quiet time of it when the yeomanry was the nation's primary constabulary. In the Second World War the regiment was unfortunate to be one of the early tank units that suffered so heavily from British inability to build good tanks and learn how to use them. It lives on today as a squadron in the Royal Wessex Yeomanry. The images were scrutinised during the article's successful MilHist A-Class review, but since then I've replaced one with File:Rgh-all.png, which I hope passes licensing muster. The article uses one primary source, the 2nd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars war diary. I do not believe I have violated WP:PRIMARY in its usage. This can be verified at http://www.warlinks.com/armour/2nd_rgh/2nd_rgh_41.php (links to 1942 and 1943 diary entries are at the bottom of that page); I have personally checked the actual diary, and facts in the article that are sourced to it are as presented on that website. I hope that this article meets the standards for FA status. Factotem (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me but there some things that could done better:

  • The lead feels too big to act as an introduction. Split an extra paragraph or try trimming them a bit.
    I've trimmed the third paragraph to remove details of equipment used, which I think was too much detail. This information was, however, added on the suggestion of an A-Class reviewer, so I'm not 100% sure about this. Other than that, by my understanding of lead sections, this one is about the right length. Maybe other reviewers will have an opinion that will clarify the consensus on this.
  • Is it possible to edit the Panels from the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars war memoria images so that they wouldn't clash with the article?
    On my screen the image occupied about half the article screen width, but I'm sure that's not the same on all screens. I have reduced the size a little, but think that making it too small will remove too much detail. I don't think there's enough room in that section to split out each of the four panels as separate images. Again, interested to read the opinions of other reviewers.
  • I used the archive bot so I believe the source review will be okay.
    Thanks. Didn't know that was possible.
  • Could the bibliography have wikilinks?
    I'm not sure I understand. The ISBN and OCLC numbers are already linked. What other links could there be, and are they necessary?

Other than that, I see no further issues. Ping me when you think it has been solved. Good luck. Also, if possible, could you check this FAC?Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Factotem (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Giving you my support. Hope it becomes a FA.Tintor2 (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources reviewe[edit]

Very little here:

  • Ref 28 requires pp, not p.
  • Ref 63 needs a space after p.

Otherwise, all sources are in excellent order and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Appreciate your help. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PM

  • I reviewed this article closely during the recent Milhist ACR and consider it meets the Featured criteria. One minor point. I'd re-instate the vehicle detail in the lead, as the lead can be up to four paragraphs for an article of this size, and given it was latterly an armoured unit, that sort of detail is appropriate for inclusion in the lead. I'd also change the parameter in References to 20em rather than 2, which should close up some of the whitespace between columns. Great job! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Appreciate your help both here and in the ACR. I've reinstated the tanks used by 2RGH in the Western Desert, as this information comes up repeatedly in the main narrative. I've also added that post-war the regiment was equipped with armoured cars, to clearly distinguish from its wartime role, but I'm not keen on specifying all the equipment – the light tanks and the post-war armoured cars – as these don't feature prominently in the narrative and, I think, do not warrant a mention in the lead per MOS:LEAD. Hope that's reasonable. Factotem (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Rgh-all.png: since this is hosted on Commons, it should include a tag indicating the copyright status of the memorial panels in the UK. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that PD-1923 was a worldwide thing. Reading the actual license would have told me that it wasn't. Silly me. I've found the sculptor's name, amended the license based on his year of death (1938), and updated the author info with sourced data. Factotem (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Is this OK now? Factotem (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Grand. Thanks for your help. Factotem (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CPA-5

Here am i like a promised let see i have a lot of comments. I hope this would help you. CPA-5 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Put the (TF) after this line "were brought into the Territorial Force."
"Territorial Force" is always used in full and never abbreviated in the article, so I don't believe there is any requirement to introduce the abbreviation.
  • Lord Lieutenant --> Lord-Lieutenant
Done.
  • Lords Lieutenant --> Lord-lieutenants
Done
  • FitzHardinge --> Lord FitzHardinge cause of titel
Per MOS:HON, honourifics are optional after first mention.
  • Can you link 3rd Yeomanry Brigade. (if its have his own page of course)
Does not have a page.
  • Where lies Qatia. (or Katia)
Already explained in the article.
  • Why are there a lot of units who aren't linked are there no pages or are they all redirects
All of the units listed below are one of: already linked on first mention; exist only as a redirect; have no article.
    • 2/1st South Midland Mounted Brigade
    • 2/2nd Mounted Division
    • 1/1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 2/1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 3/1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 10th Mounted Brigade
    • 4th Cyclist Brigade
    • 2nd Mounted Division
    • 5th Mounted Brigade
    • 21st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 2nd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 3rd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 7th Armoured Division
    • 22nd Armoured Brigade
    • 4th County of London Yeomanry
    • 7th Motor Brigade
    • 4th County of London Yeomanry
    • 5th Royal Tank Regiment
    • 3rd County of London Yeomanry
    • Gloucester Troop
  • south-east --> southeast
Per MOS:COMPASS, compass points are hyphenated in BrEng.
  • British empire --> British Empire
Done
  • north-east --> northeast
As above
  • Please link the Far East
Done
  • south-west --> southwest
As above
  • Please link this ranks and the name's
Ranks now linked, but the people do not have articles in Wikipedia
    • Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Birley
    • Major W. A. B. Trevor
  • 1st Armoured Division Tank Delivery Regiment --> 1st Armoured Division, Tank Delivery Regiment
Source states "1st Armoured Division Tank Delivery Regiment", and I don't see anything wrong with how it is now.
  • "Territorial Army" --> "Territorial Army (TA)"
I've added the abbreviation on first mention in the main body. I'm not sure there's a requirement to add it in the lead.
  • "Royal Wessex Yeomanry" --> "Royal Wessex Yeomanry (RWxY)"
I don't believe there's any requirement to abbreviate regiment names just for the sake of it, and as the full name for this regiment is always stated in this article, I don't believe there's a need to abbreviate it.
  • Can you make a list with all the commanders (with ranks and name's) of the unite below the "Battle honours" section.
That information does not exist in the sources.
  • Can you put after every unit an abbreviation like this "Royal Wessex Yeomanry (RWxY)" or Territorial Army (TA).
See above under Royal Wessex Yeomanry. As a general point, where I've used abbreviations they are always introduced after the first full mention. If there is no abbreviation, I always use the full name.
  • We have got quite a reputation. I tell you this because there are certain people in high places who can’t say anything too bad for us after the "disaster", which was bad management and nothing to do with us. So I don’t suppose we shall get much credit. It will be interesting to see. Our Anzac General is delighted with us and says all sorts of nice things, and told Ralph we saved the situation at Romani, where we were told to hold on at all costs till the infantry came up in the morning. --> "We have got quite a reputation. I tell you this because there are certain people in high places who can’t say anything too bad for us after the "disaster", which was bad management and nothing to do with us. So I don’t suppose we shall get much credit. It will be interesting to see. Our Anzac General is delighted with us and says all sorts of nice things, and told Ralph we saved the situation at Romani, where we were told to hold on at all costs till the infantry came up in the morning."
Not sure what the difference is here. Is it just the quote marks? If so, it's a quotebox, which is I believe a form of blockquote, for which quotes must not be used per MOS:BQ.
  • Who was the orginal uploader of this image. File:Sergeants,_Gloucestershire_Hussars,_1896.jpg
That info is given in the commons description, though why is that relevant?
Thanks for your help. I've either made the suggested changes and marked them as done or explained why I'm unable to make any changes as applicable. Factotem (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for explaining why you are unable to make any changes but hey i am just saying what i think it is correct anyway i didn't found anything else good job. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I appreciate your comments. Your input identified some errors and resulted in an improved article. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Between this review, and a very thorough A-Class review, I think we have covered everything. Sarastro (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Royal_Gloucestershire_Hussars/archive1&oldid=827476842"