Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/North Staffordshire Regiment

North Staffordshire Regiment
I've nominated this article because it's been assessed as B-class and mostly I'm trying to work out what needs to be improved/changed to either get it rated A-class or GA without virtually paraphrasing entire source documents.

This unit isn't one of the most well known in the British army and it's history isn't one of the exciting ones, so sources aren't that prolific and therefore I'm wondering if their is an overpreponderance on what source material there is. NtheP (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think all the points mentioned below have been accounted for except the comment about the summary. Any suggestions?  And where do we go from here towards A-class or GA? NtheP (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert
Hi, mate. Firstly, I'd like to say well done on this article. You've clearly put a lot of work into it. I have only got a couple of points:

1918–1939 Second World War
 * Could you perhaps expand a little on the Regiment's involvement in the Third Afghan War? It only gets a very brief mention (although I accept that it was a very brief war). From what you have written it seems that all they did to earn their battle honour was be stationed in India at the time, but I believe they were a bit more active in their involvement. The wiki article on this war has a little, but there is, as you say very few resources.
 * will do. Not at home so don't have the reference books with me.
 * I've added in a small amount (only one sentence unfortunately) from the only reference I had that mentioned it. I hope it helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Expanded (slightly) with references to the Official Account NtheP (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened to the 7th Battalion, do you know? It is only mentioned in passing, stating that it was part of the 176th Bde, but that it did not land in Normandy with the 6th Battalion as it had been transferred away in 1942. Do you know where it was transferred to?
 * updated for now. Again I have the divisonal assignments somewhere.
 * Updated with references NtheP (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

1945–1959
 * You mention the new 1st Battalion (64th/98th) – was this the unit's official designation when the 1st and 2nd Battalions were amalgamated in 1948? Seems a little clunky, but if it was its official name, then it should stay as is, otherwise I'd just change it to 1st Battalion. Perhaps you could clarify the redesignation if that is what happened as the wording is a little vague in my opinion, by saying something like "Accordingly the 1st Battalion left India to take part in a ceremony officially amalgamating with the 2nd Battalion in Egypt in 1948, to become the '''1st Battalion (64th/98th)..."
 * It's the designation as per the regimental history (not as bad as some - have a look at The Sherwood Foresters)
 * You mention that the 1st Battalion went to Korea after the war ended, but don't state what they did there. I take it that they were part of the UN garrison and were there to act as a deterent against a continuation of the conflict?
 * yep - nothing happened. NtheP (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, that is all I've got. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, mate. Looking good. I just added a bit and tweaked a couple of internal links, but it looks like it is getting there.


 * References
 * a couple of the references do not have an author. Are you able to find out the author and add it in? That way the reference list can be sorted alphabetically. I checked google for the 1908 one and couldn't find it. For the War Diary, I would suggest perhaps using 'War Office'. Just an idea. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The historical record has no author. I guess it was commissioned by the battalion for the battalion but there is no note as to who wrote the history part. The war diary I suppose could be edited by the adjutant. NtheP (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey
*Other websites need publisher info for BBC, date of printing etc  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes Orbat a RS? Seems like a hobby website
 * alternate reference used
 * ok, but out of interest why?
 * why are the decorations in all caps
 * They're not. Not all honours are entitled to be carried on the colours. To distinguish those that are they are in capitals as the section intro says
 * Summar section at the bottom should not be there. It should either be int eh lead or ina section, the quote can't stnad out by iteself like that
 * It was originally in the lead section but it was suggested as part of the B-class review that it shouldn't be there. As it relates to the regiment's history as a whole, where do you suggest it should fit? NtheP (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * summary section removed and used in a quote box instead. NtheP (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC) *There are a lot of links that could be added the battle honours, 1st Division, Aden, France etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1/5th Battalion TF -most readers will not know that TF stands for Territorial Force it should be added the first time it is used with TF in brackets afterwards 1/5th Battalion Territorial Force (TF)
 * done
 * superior units done
 * isn't linking Aden, France etc over linking?
 * a link for every battle honour, I did think about it and then balked at the effort :-) if you think it's worthwhile then I'll go back and do it. NtheP (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it is worth doing. Poelcapelle, Passchendaele etc if a reader wanted to know what they were the link should be there. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, definately worthwhile. I've done a few of them today to help out, but ran into some difficulty with some of them as I didn't know some of the search terms. If someone else could take a look and see if they can find some of the links, that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All done NtheP (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight
Just a couple of points:
 * Just from a quick scan, there are several grammar and spelling mistakes, so a copy-edit should be done before a GAN.
 * I've picked up some but if you see more please point them out to me or correct them, thanks. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can do a thorough copy-edit for grammar/spelling/style if you want. Best results not guaranteed, since my own grammar/style isn't the greatest. If you accept, notify me on my talk page. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's is short for "It is", if you want the possessive, you should use "its".
 * Done, thanks NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch out for your commas. In a complex sentence, if there is a dependent clause before an independent clause, there should be a comma between the two.
 * please cite me an example. My grammar isn't what it should be ;-). NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One example in the "Pre First World War" section, you have: "During the campaign the 1st battalion were based initially at Wadi Halfa but moved to Gemai to avoid a cholera outbreak." This should be "During the campaign, the 1st battalion..." --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks NtheP (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the Victoria Crosses section, it would be nice to know which battle/action it was awarded in.
 * done NtheP (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the "1918–1939" section is uncited.
 * done NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename the "1918–1939" section to "Interwar years"
 * done NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The dates of WWI and WWII should not be mentioned in their respective section headers
 * left in but bracketed - not everyone knows the dates. Is also consistent with out articles with a similar format e.g. Duke of Wellington's Regiment. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright fair enough, there seems to be a precedent. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename the "1945–1959" section to say, "Postwar years", "Ammalgration", etc.
 * done NtheP (talk)
 * I don't' think that all the individual name changes for the regiment need to be bolded. Unoboled will do just as fine.
 * I agree for the individual battalion names but not for the name changes of the regiment. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like above, there seems to be a precedent. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the Battle Honours section, some honours are uppercase and some are lowercase. I would think that lowercase is preferable and more uncyclopedic, but it should definitely be consistent. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the first sentence of the Battle honours section. Not all battle honours awarded can be carried on the regimental colours. Those that were chosen to be carried are distinguished in capitals in this section. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you add this explanation to the introduction to that section? From what's there, it was pretty vague. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * done NtheP (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)