G'day, this article has a considerable amount of WP:UNDUE detail. For example, the list of company commanders under History and also the lists in the Casualties section. Things like casualties should just be mentioned in summary as "The regiment suffered a total of XX killed in action, XX died of wounds, and XX died of disease during its service." You might mention them by name if it was a commanding officer or other notable member of the regiment that was killed, but other than that, casualties should just be numerical. Listing individuals who were invalided is just not encyclopaedic treatment. The level of detail in the operational sections seems ok. These issues may explain why this has been awaiting GAN review for so long, it has certainly put me off. I strongly recommend trimming the areas identified. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I would add that some of the information about wounds in the various engagements is also undue detail. If the commanding officer was wounded, we might want to know where, but not every soldier. We just want to know how many were killed and wounded in any given engagement. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
- G'day, this has been addressed during the recent GAN and I think it should be ok now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
