Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gloucestershire Regiment/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2018.

Gloucestershire Regiment

 * Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

One of the UK's more unassuming regiments, now history, which was unique for wearing a back badge on its headdress after one of its antecedent regiments fought back to back in Egypt. It fought in the Second Boer War and both world wars, and achieved for itself both fame and the American Presidential Unit Citation at the Battle of the Imjin River during the Korean War. A peer review did not receive too much attention, but the article received a closer inspection in its successful MilHist A class review. I'm hoping it's FA quality now. Factotem (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review For the record, I replaced the lead image again, and added an image of the back badge at the bottom of the infobox, after first checking with Nikkimaria here that there was no issue with licensing. Factotem (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC) All looks very good. Some suggestions:
 * Suggest scaling up the first map
 * Done Factotem (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Gloucestershire_Regiment_Badge.jpg: since these are 3D objects, is the fair-use claim intended to apply to the objects, the photo, or both?
 * The commons description gives a source website, on which it is stated that the images are copyrighted, so I believe it is both. Factotem (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm. If we're assuming the design is copyrighted, it should be possible to redraw and apply the fair-use claim to the design only, rather than to both. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand that the photograph fails the conditions for fair use and needs to be replaced. In terms of the object, i.e. the badges, the Ministry of Defence states in Section 7 of the MOD Crown Copyright Licensing Information that "People are free to use MOD insignia for illustration purposes. For example to include a regimental badge in a website such as Wikipedia for the purposes of describing in their own words what that regiment does". Is that statement by itself enough to eliminate the need for a fair use rationale on the object itself? In other words, could I locate the badges myself, take a picture of them, and release that picture into the public domain? Factotem (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't work for me so I can't comment specifically, but in general a statement allowing use on Wikipedia without further details about what other usage is or isn't allowed wouldn't be sufficient to demonstrate appropriate licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies - mis-formatted the link. It works now. The document gives a full license in Annex C. Factotem (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my reading of that is that it's too restrictive for our purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. I'll try and source a PD photo, but the badges themselves will have to be fair use. Out of curiosity, and if you have a moment, is the licensing on this commons image of the regimental badge valid? Factotem (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The licensing on the photo is valid, for the badge would need more information to determine. The tag for that gives three possible reasons, and it's not clear which is believed to apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I puzzled over that, and the only possibility seems to be, but I don't understand how the same badge can be out of copyright simply because its older than 70 years. The source, BTW, is not explicit, but it appears to come from a collection that dates to 1914-1918. If nothing else, this will be my fall back option, with a fair use rationale added, but I'd really like to get the back badge into the article as well, if I can. Factotem (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the badge itself dates to that era, we wouldn't need a fair-use tag at all, just a UK-Gov tag would suffice. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I must confess that I am at a loss as to how any fair use rational can be applied, when it's possible to locate an old badge and take a photo of that. On that basis, I've applied a PD-UKGov tag to a derivative work of the above CC BY-SA 3.0 image, the original source of which dates the object to the period 1914–1918, and inserted it as the lead image in place of the previous one. I really, really hope that passes muster now... Factotem (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * After a bit more digging, the provenance of the badge is not specifically stated, but the Europeana page on commons gives more background about the collections and some information about the licensing. While recognising that there were issues attaching dates to objects, it specifically states that "In all cases the item is related to WWI (making it at least 100 years old)". Factotem (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a new image, File:Glosters colours.jpg in the "Later history" section, which I believe should have no licensing issues. Would you also be able to advise if the new lead image licensing is acceptable per the above? Thanks. Factotem (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, both of those are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Lieutenant_FW_Harvey_DCM.jpg: does the OTRS ticket provide publication details? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not have access to OTRS myself, but the ticket was checked out as OK during the MilHist A class review. Factotem (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you shed a little light on what it says? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The correspondent asserts that it was published in the 2 September 1916 issue of The Gloucester Journal but the photographer is unknown. This is from a professional academic at a respected UK university and he forwards correspondence from the trustee of FW Harvey's estate. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, suggest including these details on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Factotem (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments from Hawkeye7
 * Don't abbreviate "March" in the infobox
 * anniversary of the 61st Regiment's victory at Chillianwallah when overseas, or on the anniversary of that regiment's victory at Salamanca when at home What dates were these?
 * "The name arises from an incident in 1764" Use "arose" to keep in the past tense
 * "also awarded to the 1st and 2nd volunteer battalions" Should be "Volunteer Battalions"
 * "the only German offensive that year" should be "the only German offensive on the Western Front that year"
 * The link for "Entrenching Battalions" should span both words ie Entrenching Battalions
 * Link George VI, Soviet Union
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have accommodated all your suggestions into the article. Factotem (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I went over this with a fine comb at the A-class review and I was impressed. I'm glad to see this here and I'm confident that it meets the criteria. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * General point: A number of the refs carry sometimes lengthy additioinal texts. If these texts merely summarise what's in the source, thay aren't necessary. If they are offering further information on material in the sources, such explanations would be better placed in the article text, or in the "Footnotes" – otherwise why have a "Footnotes" section?
 * I've moved nearly all refnotes into article text, footnotes or ether. Would you indulge me the three short refnotes remaining?
 * Refs 33, 34, 35: Surely, "The Long, Long Trail" is the name of the website, not part of the title? There is also a reliability issue with this website, as it appears to be "a personal website, born in 1996 and developed as a hobby ever since". Although the site's writer is a published author, the site itself does not seem to have editorial oversight or professional moderation.
 * I'm surprised that it's not considered reliable, given that the author is now a full time researcher, but the information sourced to that website was not essential to this article, and I removed it.
 * Ref 57: You need to state that the publisher of the website is The National Archives. In what part of the website are the casualty figures quoted in the accompanying note to be found?
 * Good catch. I wrote that on the first attempt at this article in 2016. I remember thinking then that it won't pass muster, but took a long break and forgot about it. Replaced with a better source.
 * Ref 84: being very pedantic, "Imperal War Museums" is plural
 * Pluralised.
 * Ref 88: You don't need a retrieval date for a link to a facsimile book. The book, not the facilitating website, is your source.
 * Removed.
 * Thank you. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You could probably make an argument that the Long, Long Trail is reliable. I've seen it cited by several other sources while researching war memorials. But I'd still be sceptical of anything I couldn't source elsewhere (besides minor details that might have been neglected by other sources in summarising). HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's not reliable, but the question is whether it meets our quality standards, given that it is a confessed hobby site and the work of a single writer. If there is evidence that it has been recommended by an authorative source such as a journal or institution, then it could pass muster, perhaps. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Iazyges

 * Support, I was a part of the A-Class review, can find no more faults. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I have been following this article as I served as an officer in the regiment just before its amalgamation. I made a few edits when it was quite a short start class article in 2014 and have been very impressed by the edits made by User:Factotem who took over from the already sterling work done by User:Dormskirk. I believe that it meets the different criteria and also agree with the removal of the non-free image that I added to the article following the explanation given by the nominator. From my personal knowledge of the regiment (my father also served with the Glosters) I believe the information given is accurate and comprehensive. Well done! Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.