Talk:Liverpool Scottish/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead needs work, specifically the paragraph and mini-list regarding other Anglo-Scottish/Irish regiments, which has no place in the lead and only just squeezes into the article. It should be moved into the first section where the formation of the unit is discussed and the bullet point list broken into prose. Then the lead needs to be expanded, particularly with some more information about the battalion's involvement in World War I (esp. battles and Chevasse).
 * Lead is much improved, but could still be a bit longer and slightly more detailed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Be sure to give clear indication when giving dates of what year is meant - readers don't want to keep checking back. I recommend at least the first date in each paragraph be given a year in addition to any changes in year during the paragraph.✅
 * Some paragraphs seemed to begin in the middle of sentances. I have tried to resolve this problem, let me know if I have changed any meanings.
 * I've noticed and corrected a number of spelling and grammar errors. I recommend running this through a spellchecker to see if there are any more.✅
 * "where its division took part in the Battle of Cambrai (1918) in November." - I've hidden the year, but can you make sure this link it to the correct battle, the date seems wrong.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Give all the required formatting and information for web sources both in the notes and the bibliography, e.g.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * I recommend incorporating ALT into the article, especially if an FAC effort is planned.


 * There has been some improvement to the lead, but otherwise most of these problems remain and have to be dealt with soon or this article may be failed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-review, apologies, this article slipped my mind. The only remaining problem here as I see it is that the article is now not complete with the removal of the 1918 material - the article has to have some discussion on the unit's activities in the year for it to be acceptable as a GA. I think the battle you originally wanted was the Battle of Cambrai (1917), and the paragraph on 1918 has to go back in with references before I can pass the article. Otherwise it is fine. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I can now pass this, well done to all concerned.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)