Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/North Staffordshire Regiment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Peer review

North Staffordshire Regiment

edit

I've nominated this article because it's been assessed as B-class and mostly I'm trying to work out what needs to be improved/changed to either get it rated A-class or GA without virtually paraphrasing entire source documents.

This unit isn't one of the most well known in the British army and it's history isn't one of the exciting ones, so sources aren't that prolific and therefore I'm wondering if their is an overpreponderance on what source material there is. NtheP (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think all the points mentioned below have been accounted for except the comment about the summary. Any suggestions? And where do we go from here towards A-class or GA? NtheP (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

edit

Hi, mate. Firstly, I'd like to say well done on this article. You've clearly put a lot of work into it. I have only got a couple of points:

1918–1939

  • Could you perhaps expand a little on the Regiment's involvement in the Third Afghan War? It only gets a very brief mention (although I accept that it was a very brief war). From what you have written it seems that all they did to earn their battle honour was be stationed in India at the time, but I believe they were a bit more active in their involvement. The wiki article on this war has a little, but there is, as you say very few resources.

Second World War

  • What happened to the 7th Battalion, do you know? It is only mentioned in passing, stating that it was part of the 176th Bde, but that it did not land in Normandy with the 6th Battalion as it had been transferred away in 1942. Do you know where it was transferred to?

1945–1959

  • You mention the new 1st Battalion (64th/98th) – was this the unit's official designation when the 1st and 2nd Battalions were amalgamated in 1948? Seems a little clunky, but if it was its official name, then it should stay as is, otherwise I'd just change it to 1st Battalion. Perhaps you could clarify the redesignation if that is what happened as the wording is a little vague in my opinion, by saying something like "Accordingly the 1st Battalion left India to take part in a ceremony officially amalgamating with the 2nd Battalion in Egypt in 1948, to become the 1st Battalion (64th/98th)..."
    • It's the designation as per the regimental history (not as bad as some - have a look at The Sherwood Foresters)
  • You mention that the 1st Battalion went to Korea after the war ended, but don't state what they did there. I take it that they were part of the UN garrison and were there to act as a deterent against a continuation of the conflict?

Anyway, that is all I've got. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, mate. Looking good. I just added a bit and tweaked a couple of internal links, but it looks like it is getting there.
References
  • a couple of the references do not have an author. Are you able to find out the author and add it in? That way the reference list can be sorted alphabetically. I checked google for the 1908 one and couldn't find it. For the War Diary, I would suggest perhaps using 'War Office'. Just an idea. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The historical record has no author. I guess it was commissioned by the battalion for the battalion but there is no note as to who wrote the history part. The war diary I suppose could be edited by the adjutant. NtheP (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey

edit
  • What makes Orbat a RS? Seems like a hobby website
    • alternate reference used

*Other websites need publisher info for BBC, date of printing etc

    • ok, but out of interest why?
  • why are the decorations in all caps
    • They're not. Not all honours are entitled to be carried on the colours. To distinguish those that are they are in capitals as the section intro says
  • Summar section at the bottom should not be there. It should either be int eh lead or ina section, the quote can't stnad out by iteself like that
    • It was originally in the lead section but it was suggested as part of the B-class review that it shouldn't be there. As it relates to the regiment's history as a whole, where do you suggest it should fit? NtheP (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YellowMonkey  (cricket calendar poll!) 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney

edit

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1/5th Battalion TF -most readers will not know that TF stands for Territorial Force it should be added the first time it is used with TF in brackets afterwards 1/5th Battalion Territorial Force (TF)
    • done

*There are a lot of links that could be added the battle honours, 1st Division, Aden, France etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    • superior units done
    • isn't linking Aden, France etc over linking?
    • a link for every battle honour, I did think about it and then balked at the effort :-) if you think it's worthwhile then I'll go back and do it. NtheP (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is worth doing. Poelcapelle , Passchendaele etc if a reader wanted to know what they were the link should be there. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
I agree, definately worthwhile. I've done a few of them today to help out, but ran into some difficulty with some of them as I didn't know some of the search terms. If someone else could take a look and see if they can find some of the links, that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done NtheP (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patar knight

edit

Just a couple of points:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/North_Staffordshire_Regiment&oldid=1087823693"