Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gloucestershire Regiment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Gloucestershire Regiment

[edit]
Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

Gloucestershire Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article has been significantly expanded. A peer review was requested 3 weeks ago, but has not received much feedback. I'm now requesting an A-Class review to see if I can get more feedback in preparation for submission to FAC. FactotEm (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions (largely minor points): AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Notes section, I think the capitalisation and punctuation could be improved slightly. For instance, "p148 Total casualties" (and similar constructions) should probably use a full stop or colon to separate the citation from the explanatory note. For example, "p148: total casualties" or "p148. Total casualties". I also suggest separating the number from the page with a full stop and space, e.g. "p. 148". This will be easier on the readers' eyes.
    checkY Punctuation added. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, I believe we generally omit "Ltd" from the publishers
    checkY "Ltd" removed. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, "Mossman, Billy C" probably should have full stop after "C" for consistency
    checkY FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, some use publisher locations and some don't. For example, compare Mossman with Salmon
    checkY Only two sources had location information, so I removed them for consistency and on the assumption that this info is not mandatory. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Daniell xii" --> "Daniell p. xii"?
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • watch out for overlink, here are a few examples: Militia (Great Britain), Volunter Force (Great Britain), Battle of the Somme, Battle of St Quentin Canal, Second World War,
    checkY Removed those listed above, will check for more later. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just run a dup-link checker, and it has not identified any further cases. FactotEm (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the link for Battle of Cambrai is a dab link here (and should be adjusted): "In early December, during the Battle of Cambrai, a heavy..."
    checkY Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for the link for Battle of Albert here: "...at La Boiselle during the Battle of Albert"
    checkY Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the grammar would be improved slightly with the use of definite articles (as you use them for some and not others. For instance "POW camp, 2nd Battalion..." but "became the 159th Regiment". As such, I would suggest "POW camp, the 2nd Battalion". Same same for other definitive units (e.g. "transferred to the 56th Independent Infantry Brigade")
    Question: The lack of the definite article is a conscious decision on my part, but I flip-flopped on its use for units throughout the writing of this article, and I'm still not sure. We don't use them for company level statements, as in "a 17-man patrol from C Company", and it seems to me it's equally wrong at the next level up. "2nd Battalion" is a proper name, and it seems as wrong to write "the 2nd Battalion went into action" as to write "the Factotem went into action". My writing "became the 159th Regiment" is an oversight on my part, but I do realise that I have not been totally consistent in the non-use of the definite article; I've left it out up to brigade level, but used it at division level. The sources vary in its use; Salmon tends to omit, Littlewood and Daniell not. So I don't know what's the right thing to do here. Is it a major fail in your opinion? FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    G'day, not a major fail, IMO, and I certainly wouldn't oppose over it, but it doesn't sound right to me. My argument is that we don't use the definite article for platoons or companies because they are not definitive. There are many sub units called "A Company" across an army and they hold no distinctive identity by themselves, but there is really only one 2nd Battalion, Gloucester Regiment, which is its proper name and which identifies it as a unique entity. So it would be "The 2nd Battalion assaulted the position" rather than "2nd Battalion assaulted the position". Same same for brigades and divisions etc (e.g. "The 16th Brigade was assigned to the 6th Division...). I wonder if dropping the definitive article is a more recent approach. If it is, maybe I'm getting old because I'm not a fan of that development ... but anyway, with that it's bed time ... Old Man Rupert shakes his fist at world, and retires for the night knowing that he will probably bump his head on the end of the bed and won't be able to get up in the morning... ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    :D Thanks. That all makes sense. I do think it's a recent thing; Salmon was published in 2010, while Daniell was originally published in 1951, and Wyrell, who uses the definite article, was published in 1931. It sounds as wrong to me to use the definite article as it does to you to omit it, but I know that Keith-264, when he made some copy-edits, used it. I will leave it as is for now, but will think further on it, and if others feel it worth their time weighing in with opinions I'll go with the consensus. FactotEm (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Too easy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Shed a tear at every edit, but checkY done. FactotEm (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glosters' commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Carne...": add full name on first mention
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...addition of 'Chillianwallah', 'Goojerat', 'Punjaub', and 'Delhi 1857' to the list...": the MOS generally prefers double quote marks
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "guns of 45 Field Regiment..." --> "guns of the 45th Field Regiment"
    See question above. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate the time and effort you give to help with this article. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "amalgamated" in lede; you may wish to link to Wiki-dictionary, as amalgamated isn't the most common of terms.
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1782, the British Army began linking foot regiments with counties for the purposes of recruitment." Is there a specific reason why, or did the British just make the decision? (i.e. were they pressing concerns of low numbers, or unloyal troops).
    To be honest, I don't know. The source simply says for the purposes of recruitment. I do know the army hated it at the time, and just over 200 years later, when the British ended the county-based association, it was none too pleased to lose it. FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd to me that you avoid linking city names in the "Origin" section, but link them in later sections. Is their a good reason for this?
    Sorry. Not sure that I understand. I've searched, and I think the only city linked is Bristol, in the infobox, and that's something I just left in place, there before I started on this article. Generally I only link when there is something relevant to the topic, and, with a few exceptions, in this article it's pretty much only battles, individuals and military units. I don't even link to Gloucester. Can you point me to an example? FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The regiment added 4 new battle honours to its colours: "Defence of Ladysmith"; "Relief of Kimberley"; "Paardeberg"; and "South Africa, 1899–1902"; the last of which was also awarded to the 1st and 2nd volunteer battalions." Are battle honors either a mix of city/location name and which action took place there, and sometimes just city name/location, based upon if multiple things happen there, or else if little of event (i.e. no major battle) occurs?
    As I understand it, the first two are actions, the second specific battle, and the last is a campaign honour. In the same way, the regiment received individual honours for battles fought in Burma in WWII, and also the campaign honour "Burma 1942 '44–45". FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In mid-April, the under-strength battalion became so dispersed protecting demolition parties at oil installations around Yenangyaung and Chauk that when Bagot returned from hospital he was informed the battalion had ceased to exist." add a "while" between dispersed and protecting, and ", in effect," between had and ceased to exist.
    checkY. Added "while", but the source specifically says that Bagot "...was told that it had ceased to exist". FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is all my comments; happy to support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • Just an observation: it seems the regiment has a dedicated Boer War memorial in Bristol ([1]), though interestingly not one from WWI
    Odd indeed, especially as one territorial and at least one new army battalion were raised in Bristol.
  • I notice you're not citing EA James' British Regiments 1914–18, which is my go-to source for key dates and engagements for regiments in WWI. I'd be happy to email you the relevant pages if you want. It might not contain anything new but it all helps to satisfy the completeness criteria at A-class and FAC (I hope you'll be taking the article that way when we're done here).
    That's very kind of you. Thanks. Yes, I'm hoping to get this through FAC. I bought both Westlake and McCarthy to find out the day to day movements, but I certainly would appreciate another source. I've enabled e-mail on my account.
  • Since the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment didn't last very long, is it worth mentioning in the lead that it was subsequently amalgamated into the Rifles?
    The Rifles were mentioned in the article when I started, but as a 'grandson' unit I did not consider it in itself relevant, and was concerned about the article length. However, I believe the Rifles in some way maintain the back badge tradition, so maybe the article can stand a sentence on that, but I need to root out a source. Bear with me please.
    On further thought, can I push back on this one? It's only marginally relevant, and logically this info would come after the regiment ceased to exist, but I really like ending on the statement about the regiment following its predecessors into history. Is this a problem? FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • their baptism of fire came in 1899 during the Second Boer War Unless "baptism of fire" is the term used in the source, that phrase strikes me as editorialising
    checkY It's a fine line between engaging prose and editorialising, and I crossed it here. I've amended the wording.
  • I believe it's conventional to use a definite article with battalion numbers (eg, the 1st Battalion); this also avoids the problem of starting a sentence with a numeral, which is frowned upon.
    Fair enough. Looks like I'm in a minority of one here. I'll go through and add the definite article when I have a bit more time. Presumably the same applies to brigades, from which I've also omitted the definite article?
    checkY Swallowed my pride and made the necessary changes to battalion and brigade. FactotEm (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry. Hadn't realised this was a bone of contention. I wouldn't have opposed over it but I do think it's better with the definite articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My response was a bit melodramatic. It's not contentious. I wasn't 100% sure myself, but thought stylistically it looks better without. You're 3 of 3 for preferring it with, so I'll go with the flow. FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in echoes of the Battle of Alexandria Does the source make that connection or is that editorialising?
    The source does indeed make the connection; it says: "The Battalion had indeed repeated (though under modern conditions) that splendid incident at Alexandria in 1801 when they fought back-to-back...". Is that OK?
    And, as it turns out, a good catch. I had applied the "echoes of Alexandria" to the wrong battle. Fixed now. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st Battalion moved with 1st Division to the south I'd clarify here that the division is a (significantly) superior formation of which the battalion is a part, lest someone unfamiliar with army structures mistake the meaning for a division of the regiment.
    checkY Amended the wording to say 1st Division moved..., and 1st Battalion participated...
  • "a chronicle, serious and humorous, of the Battalion while serving with the British Expeditionary Force" We need a reference right after a quote, and the quote needs to be attributed—is that the paper's description of itself or an historian's description of it? I think both of those requirements are in MOS:QUOTE.
    Can you bear with me on this one? Having source problems. The Gloucestershire Live source is now dead and not in the archive, and I accessed F.W. Harvey's book via Google Books previews, which is no longer offering previews. The IWM source does actually state that text, but I suspect that's not enough to verify at as quote. I may have to recast this section, or even remove it entirely, which would be a shame. That was the journal's own description of itself, BTW.
    A compilation was published just after the war, see [2], which has those words in the title. Would that do? A modern day reprint is also available, but that's a Lulu self-published version, which rules it out, I believe, as a reliable source.
    checkY OK. The gazette was published after the war as a compilation, the title of which includes those words. I've rewritten the section to say that, dispensed with the quote and removed the deadlink. Hope that addresses this issue now. FactotEm (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's as far as as the Second World War section for now. This is really excellent—interesting and very well written. I'll be back with more comments in a day or so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the time and effort you've spent so far, especially given the length of this article. I'm dead chuffed that you found it well written. Thank you! FactotEm (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Outstanding work. I've sent you an email about James. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, references:

  • Be consistent in whether you use locations in book citations (you'll get less hassle at FAC with them, but they're not essential)
    AustralianRupert mentioned this as well, and because I couldn't find the location info for all publishers, I removed that info from all. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use either "The Naval & Military Press" or "Naval & Military" but be consistent
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with "Pen and Sword" versus "Pen & Sword"
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in hyphenating ISBNs (you currently have a mix of after the prefix and throughout)
    Is there a rule that says they must be hyphenated? The only info I have is what is printed in the book or on Google Books/Amazon. Some of them are only hyphenated after the 978 prefix, so can I just remove the other hyphens and make them all consistent with the format 978-0750941723, for example? FactotEm (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there's no rule. As far as I know the number works no matter where you put the hyphens, or if you omit them altogether as I usually do. The only thing that's important for our purposes is that you're consistent (hyphenate after the prefix only, throughout, or not at all, but do the same withal your ISBNs). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in using ISBN-13s or ISBN-10s (even most older books will have an ISBN-13, Google Books can help with that; if they don't then you can get away with using the 10)
    I can't find the ISBN-13 for ED Harvey's The Imjin Roll, which I have to leave as 0952959763, but all the rest have ISBN-13s now. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in citing the Soldiers of Gloucestershire Museum (see, or example, footnotes 28 and 31)
    Other than the access date, I don't see any inconsistency. Should they all have the same access date? FactotEm (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, don't worry about the access dates. It's entirely possible I'm going insane. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For FAC, you might need to have an answer ready if somebody asks you why gloshistory.org.uk, angloboerwar.com, drillhalls.org, The Long Long Trail, remembering.org.uk, and regiments.org are reliable sources. I'm not sure about those sites in particular but I know some of those sorts of sites are run by hobbyists and wouldn't be considered reliable sources for our purposes.
    Where possible I've resourced the info to books, or edited to remove the need for them. I've kept two chunks of info sourced to The Long Long Trail and regiments.org because I think they do add value and can't find the info anywhere else. I'll see how they fare at FAC. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

  • File:Soldier of 28th regiment 1742.jpg: if the work originates from the 18th century it's clearly PD but you need some sort of proof of that (also I wasn't able to find it at the source given)
  • File:Gloucestershire Regimental Colours.jpg: Fair use is probably justified but the rationale needs fleshing out a little; I wonder if this is replaceable with a photo of the colours laid up somewhere?
  • File:Lieutenant FW Harvey DCM.jpg: I verified the OTRS ticket myself (and despaired at the hoops we make people jump through to upload something that should obviously be out of copyright)

Otherwise, images are all in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll get to work on that first image. The colours image I have concerns about myself. I messaged the uploader a day or so ago asking about it, but from my understanding of fair use, which is a pixel above non-existent, the laid up colours image is a PD alternative that torpedoes any fair use rationale. Still waiting on a response. In the meantime I'll research fair use rationales a little more and see if I can come up with some text. FactotEm (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I was skimming the list with a view to proposing a few reviews for closure but ended up doing image reviews! This is probably good to go once the images are sorted (though obviously it'll be another coordinator who makes the decision). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found the source for File:Soldier of 28th regiment 1742.jpg and confirmation that it is PD, and updated the commons description to that effect. FactotEm (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: File:Gloucestershire Regimental Colours.jpg, I dug some more into fair use, and I don't think I can come up with anything satisfactory. The uploader appears to be active only at weekends, but was not last active last weekend. I will leave it until next Monday, and if there's still no response I will remove the image from the article. Hope that's OK. FactotEm (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, I'd just remove it, then the images are all good and this can be listed for closing. Though the more I think about it, the colours might be in the public domain anyway. If they're crown copyright, that expires after 50 years, and they're a composite of various other images which are likely to be much older anyway. @Nikkimaria: Could you offer any advice? We're talking about File:Gloucestershire Regimental Colours.jpg. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would need more information - when were the colours designed, to what extent are they derivative of earlier works? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The person who uploaded the image and added it to the article is, according to a notice on their user page, only active at weekends, but since 4 December he has only been active for less then 10 minutes on 13 Dec. to do some maintenance reverts only. I'll give it a few hours more, and if there's still no response from him, I'll remove the image from the article. FactotEm (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the image now. FactotEm (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Gloucestershire_Regiment&oldid=816104714"