Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 22, 2018

History
hi. As an ex-officer of the regiment can I just say that one of the most important things about the regiment is that it traces its history to 1694, we were amalgamated in 1994 just after the tercentenary celebrations, British army regiments inherit the history and battle honours when they are amalgamated. Is there a way of getting at least the year 1694 in the lede as it is on the article page? i understand why you reverted my edit BTW. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be possible to reduce the places that the regiment fought in in the 1st world war to Europe and the Middle East this should reduce the number of characters used. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I'll bring this up at WT:TFA so others can weigh in if they like. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks I'm doing a bit of copyediting to try and get in the 1694 bit and keep the other salient points. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: my re-write. The regiment's tours of duty after the Korean War don't take up a lot of space in the article, and it seems odd to include that in the blurb but mention only one of the four battalions' actions in the Second World War. The award of the Presidential Unit Citation is, I believe, also significant enough to warrant a mention in the blurb. My effort comes in at 981 visible characters. Factotem (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I like Factotem's version -- i.e. with the quote from the U.N. commander -- because it is both justified by the Korea aspect's level of coverage in the article, and also makes clear something that is unique about this unit other than just having seen action (if I'm allowed to use that phrase still) in a list of conflicts and theatres. Of course, we should definitely keep the 1694 date in as well. MPS1992 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What does "which traced its roots to 1694" mean? How will readers know what it means? It's possible that if we clarify that, we'll be over the character limit. Of course, I'm in favor of mentioning everything that's important, if possible. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point. How does "The Gloucestershire Regiment (1881–1994) was a line infantry regiment of the British Army with a heritage that dated back to 1694." sound? That would put the character count up to 990 and, I think, concisely convey that the regiment had some 'prior'. Factotem (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't know what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Gloucestershire Regiment (1881–1994) was a line infantry regiment of the British Army formed from two regiments originally raised in 1694 and 1758."? 1011 characters. Factotem (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me Dom from Paris (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added that, and tweaked the rest to make it look less like a list of conflicts and theatres. 1021 characters. Does it look OK now? Factotem (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks great to me. MPS1992 (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I made four small changes; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 22:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't think I'd get away with "via". :) I was trying to avoid a "During the First World War...In the Second World War...During the Korean War" procession, but it's not something I would fight over. However, "Almost all the 2nd Battalion soldiers died in the Battle of Dunkirk..." is plain wrong - most were taken prisoner. I can understand avoiding "wiped out", perhaps we can write "The 2nd Battalion was practically destroyed in the Battle of Dunkirk, but was rebuilt and returned to France on D-Day at Gold Beach"? Finally, we're talking about a battalion's stand in Korea, so the last sentence really should start "Its stand was described..." Factotem (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Same thing with "...for which they received the Presidential Unit Citation." I would suggest "...for which the regiment received...". The fact that it was a unit citation reinforces this idea that we're talking about a singular unit rather than a group of soldiers. Factotem (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Better? - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As much as I wanted to avoid the procession of conflicts, I think there needs to be some signal that we moved on from WWII to the Korean War, so I've moved "During the Korean War..." back to the beginning of the sentence. There's two other issues I have, but you're the expert so I'll leave it to you:
 * I think it would be better to write "...for which it received the American Presidential Unit Citation", to make it explicit that it was awarded for that action and not simply handed out;
 * There are competing considerations, but I may be able to make that change. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "The 2nd Battalion was practically destroyed in the Battle of Dunkirk" is obviously a problem for you, but I don't like "Most of the 2nd Battalion soldiers were taken prisoner...". It also lost 194 men killed or wounded, so "Most of the 2nd Battalion was lost in the Battle of Dunkirk" might encapsulate this better. Factotem (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not generally the way we put it at WP:Milhist. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to just say how many of the battalion made it back from Dunkirk? Eg The 2nd battalion was reformed from the n soldiers that were rescued from Dunkirk" or something long those lines.Dom from Paris (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The article doesn't say, exactly, it says they were 400 strong when they reassembled, and the 2nd had been merged with another unit even before most of the casualties at Dunkirk. This wasn't a time of fastidious record-keeping. And we generally don't go to that level of detail at TFA. So, probably not. - Dank (push to talk) 12:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Or reformed from those that escaped death and capture at Dunkirk. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)