Gloucestershire Regiment is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2018.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 19, 2017	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
January 15, 2018	Featured article candidate	Promoted
December 2, 2017	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Featured article

Military history: British / European / World War I

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Gloucestershire High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire 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.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Help improve our long-awaited Wikiproject!

Untitled

Please join our project to upgrade Gloucestershire-related articles to featured status. Mike |talk 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gloucestershire Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/028Glos.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Development of this article

Ran out of time before coming even close to finishing this article. Intend to revisit it soon, but there is simply too much material to go into such detail in a single article. My plan is, therefore, to spin out the history of the regiment in WWI to a separate article, and summarise that period in this one. FactotEm (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Gloucestershire Regiment in World War I

Update: content-wise I think this article is pretty much there now. FactotEm (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Well done! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx :) FactotEm (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate links

What's the consensus on duplicate linking of the Victoria Cross recipients in this article? They are first linked in the main narrative where their VC-winning actions are described. TenthEagle (talk · contribs) is now linking them for a second time in the list of recipients that appears at the end of the article. My take is that as a Featured Article this article should comply with MOS, and specifically MOS:DUPLINK, which says not to duplicate links in this way. Factotem (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We only need one link.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One only. Keith-264 (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One only. Mztourist (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS does say a link may be repeated in a table so I think it may be acceptable here given the list is a pseudo-table. The list is helpful for the reader since it centralises the VC recipients in one place and they don't have to review all the campaign history to find the soldiers. Zawed (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a straight headcount the !vote is 4:2 against the duplicate links, a position further strengthened by the the MOS, which is also against them, so I'm removing them. Please do not add them back in without seeking consensus for it. Thanks all. Factotem (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]