Talk:Liverpool Irish

Some notes and questions (Good Article Nomination)
I saw this on the Good Article Candidates page and had a looksie. I'm not an expert at all on British military history, but have the following questions/comments: -- Patiwat 02:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article notes that the Liverpool Irish saw substantial losses in the Western Front, with over 2,000 dead, wounded, and missing. But how many troops were in the entire unit?  If they had a few thousand, then 2,000 men down would be a substantial loss - but if they had >>10,000, it couldn't really be called substantial.
 * Likewise, when it is noted that depletion by losses and transfer caused the Liverpool Irish to be disbanded, it would be interesting to note how many % of troops were left at the time of disbanding.
 * Has the troop had no role in any British post-WWII military conflicts?
 * It would be great to see a Liverpool Irish patch, sleave insignia, or coat of arms. And also maybe a picture of what a caubeen headress looks like.
 * The article seems well written. The article appears factually accurate - it has lots of references, and it appears that most of the references are of some quality.  The article seems focused, but I can't say whether this article is sufficiently broad in its coverage.  It seems neutral and factual.  It appears to be stable.  If I knew enough about the subject to evaluate the article's breadth of coverage, I wold probably give the article Good Article status.
 * Some comments in addition to the above by Patiwat, which I agree with.
 * The second and third paragraphs of the lead does not really act as a summary of the article, rather they act as the start of the history section. See WP:LEAD for more details.
 * When the West Lancashire Division was reformed in January 1916 could do with some more explanation. We are told that The 1/8th transferred to the North Lancashire Brigade in February 1915, but are given no indication that the West Lancashire Brigade ever disbanded.
 * The modern role of the unit is mentioned in the lead, but not in the main text. These details should be restated at the end of the article, rather than having it end abruptly at 1967.
 * Other than the matters already stated there appear to be no further barriers to GA status; the article is well-written, well referenced using a number of sources, seems sufficiently broad in coverage to a non-expert, is stable and contains appropriate images. Oldelpaso 14:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
The October 14, 2006 nomination for good article has failed because the above comments by reviewers of this nomination have not been addressed. Please feel free to polish up the article and resubmit it in the future. Neil916 (Talk) 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Liverpool Irish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061009174919/http://www.army.mod.uk/103regtrav/mission_statements.htm to http://www.army.mod.uk/103regtrav/mission_statements.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071017003116/http://1914-1918.net:80/BATTLES/learningcurve1_givenchy.htm to http://www.1914-1918.net/BATTLES/learningcurve1_givenchy.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080609013152/http://www.1914-1918.net:80/bat20_pilkem.html to http://www.1914-1918.net/bat20_pilkem.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)