Talk:5th/6th Battalion, Royal Victoria Regiment

Fair use rationale for Image:RVRYRonRB.jpg
Image:RVRYRonRB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Improvements
Firstly, thanks to all that have contributed to this article. There is lots of information in it. However, in my opinion it is very cumbersome and difficult to digest. I believe the article needs to be re-written in accordance with wikipedia's MoS and broken down into logical sections with a proper narrative flow (e.g. Introduction, History, Battle Honours, Misc, etc). I am prepared to have a crack, but wanted to run it by the talk page first as obviously someone has done a lot of work previously and I don't want to stand on anybody's toes. In rewriting it, I think most (if not all) the information that is currently there can be kept and used, however, it is a matter of re-organising it. I freely admit I am no guru on the RVR, though. I just feel that the page could benefit from a copy-edit in order to make it more encyclopedic. As a part of this, I believe that some of the lists, whilst great in terms of info, make the article cumbersome. For example the list of units raised in Victoria does not belong in this article, it belongs in an article of its own, e.g. "List of Australian Army Units Raised in Victoria". That's my two cents worth, anyway, what does anyone else thing? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now created a separate article/list page for the list of Victorian units. It can be found at List of Infantry Units Raised by the Australian Army in Victoria. As such I will remove the list from the battalion article. If anyone objects to this, please let me know and we can discuss. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have completed re-formatting the article. I have merged a few of the previously existing sections as I think there were too many. I have also made them sub sections of the main History section. I think this makes it more reader friendly. I have, however, not touched most of the text. I have done a few minor tweaks here and there but largely it has been left as was. The article will probably need a copy edit if it is to be improved to a B class (along with citations as per below), however, as I do not have any sources I will leave this to someone else. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed
I have included a citations needed tag on this article as it is completely devoid of in line citations. These are necessary for the article to be taken to a B Class, and important to guard against copyright violations. As I was not involved with writing the article I have no way of knowing where any of the information came from, so I am unable to add citations. I have added a Notes section in the article, and used the reflist template so if you wish to help add citations, all you need to do is use the reference template format and they will appear automatically upon saving.

If you were involved in writing the original article it would be great if you could go through and add these in line citations so that the article can be assessed against the B Class criteria and the citations needed tag removed. Until then it is impossible for anyone to know where the information was gathered from and therefore properly critique the article. Regardless, thanks for your work as there is lots of good information in the article. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading List
I have removed the large further reading list from the article, as I believe that it does not add to it. It is a good list of books that would be of interest, however, it is too large and the sources are not all specific to the article. I believe that only material that is cited with in line citations should be included in the references section. I will, however, leave the table here on the talk page should any one feel they want to discuss this change. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)