Wikipedia:Peer review/Gloucestershire Regiment on the Somme/archive1

Gloucestershire Regiment on the Somme
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback on the article quality, maybe with a view to GA or FA. It's a spin-off from Gloucestershire Regiment in World War I, created when it became apparent that that article, itself a spin-off from Gloucestershire Regiment, was turning into a monster, so I'm also interested to hear on any thoughts about suitability of such a niche subject for Wikipedia.

Thanks, FactotEm (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments
 * Given the length of the article, suggest a longer lead section
 * Lead image badly needs a legend
 * If we're having this article as a more detailed spin-off of Gloucestershire Regiment in World War I, it seems very odd that that article is not linked anywhere in this one that I can see. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria Thank you for taking the time to review this article. When I get the chance I'll address the issues you raise. FactotEm (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All suggestions accommodated. Much appreciated. Thanks FactotEm (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments G'day, interesting article. Thanks for your efforts so far. I have a couple of minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * in the lead, are there links that could be added to "regular" and "reserve" to clarify to lay readers what the difference is?
 * in the lead, Kitchener should be linked on first mention, with his full name
 * in the lead it says "two regular battalions, three territorial battalions, and a reserve battalion" but in the body it says "comprised two regular and three territorial battalions". This appears inconsistent. I realise, though, that you include the explanation in the citation, but I'd suggest moving it out of the citation for clarity
 * the hyphens should be replaced with endashes for page and date ranges, and where used in sentences for parenthetical statements per WP:DASH
 * @AustralianRupert And thank you too for your help. I'll sort these out when I get the chance. FactotEm (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All suggestions accommodated. Much appreciated. Thanks FactotEm (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)