Wikipedia:Peer review/Gloucestershire Regiment on the Somme/archive1

Gloucestershire Regiment on the Somme[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback on the article quality, maybe with a view to GA or FA. It's a spin-off from Gloucestershire Regiment in World War I, created when it became apparent that that article, itself a spin-off from Gloucestershire Regiment, was turning into a monster, so I'm also interested to hear on any thoughts about suitability of such a niche subject for Wikipedia.

Thanks, FactotEm (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Given the length of the article, suggest a longer lead section
Lead image badly needs a legend
If we're having this article as a more detailed spin-off of Gloucestershire Regiment in World War I, it seems very odd that that article is not linked anywhere in this one that I can see. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria Thank you for taking the time to review this article. When I get the chance I'll address the issues you raise. FactotEm (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All suggestions accommodated. Much appreciated. Thanks FactotEm (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments G'day, interesting article. Thanks for your efforts so far. I have a couple of minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, are there links that could be added to "regular" and "reserve" to clarify to lay readers what the difference is?
in the lead, Kitchener should be linked on first mention, with his full name
in the lead it says "two regular battalions, three territorial battalions, and a reserve battalion" but in the body it says "comprised two regular and three territorial battalions". This appears inconsistent. I realise, though, that you include the explanation in the citation, but I'd suggest moving it out of the citation for clarity
the hyphens should be replaced with endashes for page and date ranges, and where used in sentences for parenthetical statements per WP:DASH

@AustralianRupert And thank you too for your help. I'll sort these out when I get the chance. FactotEm (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All suggestions accommodated. Much appreciated. Thanks FactotEm (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]