Talk:52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot/GA1

GA Review

I have reviewed this article according to the good article criteria and have decided to put it on a seven day hold pending further modifications. This is a very well researched and fantastically well referenced article, but it suffers from a number of problems which prevent it passing straight away as a good article. These mainly centre around the way the article has been written.

Well Written

• There are a fair few minor mistakes across the article. The article needs to be carefully copy edited, paying particular attention to sentence structure, capitalisation and spelling.

I have largely done this, although I recommend someone checks again to make sure. I will be re-reading the article in full at the end of the 7 day hold in any case. Chrisfow (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing that! (But, by the way, "badge" was correct for the retained honours: The Rifles do not carry colours.) I will do some more proof-reading and copyediting when I've finished working. Gwinva (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've been through a couple of times. Gwinva (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the Regimental History section, 'American Revolutionary War' is used as a title and then refered to in the body of the text as the 'American War of Independence'. This should be standardised, especially since the former term is not used in the United Kingdom. As this article is about a British unit, I would suggest using the latter term, but it does not really matter as long as only one is used throughout the article.

Y Done.

The nominator has met all concerns in this area. Geoff Plourde (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Take a closer look at wikilinking more words and phrases. Specialist or originally non-English words such as 'sepoy' and 'forlorn hope' deserve wikilinking to make the subject easier to understand for newcomers to the subject. While it is not usual practice, since this is quite a long article you should also consider wikilinking some things more than once - for example, The Rifles are wikilinked in the Later History section, but mentioned again without a link about 1200 words later in the Legacy section. Done. Chrisfow (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't see any problems with current linking. Geoff Plourde (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Peninsula account is confused and not fantastically written. Account of Wellesley's successors being sent home is ambiguous, it initially reads as though the army itself was sent home. Then, the splitting of the army before Vigo is badly explained, with it being confused as to who exactly split from the army - was it the Flank and Reserve, just Reserve or just Flank? The evacuation after the Battle of Corunna explains the 1/52nd were taken back to England, but why is there no mention of 2/52nd who were also in country? Add a couple of words explaining what the Walcheran Campaign was, such as '[2/52nd] joined the unsuccessful Walcheren Campaign to the Netherlands...'

• Will have a good session sorting this all out. Gwinva (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have spent some time rewording and clarifying those issues (and others). While it's not the "sparkling prose" of FA, I trust it is clear and understandable. Gwinva (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved Geoff Plourde (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopaedia article, not a British regimental diary! Do not miss out 'were' from sentences as is the military style. For example, 'The Light Division again dug trenches, near Fort Picurina, which was stormed, and batteries established'; 'On 6 April, the breaches were deemed practicable, and the Light Division ordered to storm the breach at Santa Maria.' Done. Chrisfow (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved Geoff Plourde (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Vitoria-Gasteiz in the Basque Country of Spain, site of the Battle of Vitoria, is spelt with only one ‘t’, and has been since its inception Done. Chrisfow (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• When the peace settlements were signed, tell us which French Governor was last to sign. Of Spain?

Y Of Bayonne. Done.

• What is meant by ‘Records of April 1842 show that they were, at that time, stationed in Barbados,[74] which British-held territory was customarily garrisoned by British units’? Of course British colonies were garrisoned by British Army units. Is there another point which you are trying to get across here?

Y, well only to mention it was routine garrison duty, not anything exciting! Have clarified. Gwinva (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why is the battle honour of Hindoostan picked out for special mention? The wording in the honours section should be changed to make it clear that these are every single one of the honours gained. In addition, you should wikilink to as many of the battles listed there as possible (i.e. as many of them as Wikipedia has articles about).

Y Done.

• Since Reginald Wilberforce has been picked out for special mention, Ensign Leeke should be too. Leeke is quoted in every book about Waterloo worth reading, and is far more important in academic terms than Wilberforce

• Of course! I've even quoted Leeke myself in the Waterloo section... I was looking for a nice "Leeke is an excellent source and we all depend on him" type quote. Will sort something. Gwinva (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Y I've added Leeke. In fact, I got so carried away looking for good quotes & sources that I wrote William Leeke! Gwinva (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved Geoff Plourde (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Factually Accurate and Verifiable

• In the lead section, the claim is made that the 52nd had the largest battalion at Waterloo. This is not referenced in the lead, but later on in the Waterloo section the claim is made again in a sentence which is attributed to page 267 of Moorsom (1860). Just to clarify, does Moorsom make this claim, or does p. 267 of his 1860 work merely provide casualty numbers?

Y I obtained the Moorsom ref from the Waterloo order of battle, so don't have access to it to verify (would love a copy, though...), but the "largest battalion at Waterloo" is verifiable elsewhere: I've added a cite to the lead, and expanded the comment to clarify it. Gwinva (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved Geoff Plourde (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Broad in Coverage

• The article would benefit from a section or addition to a section detailing every 52nd recipient of the Victoria Cross and at which battle this was won.

Y The 52nd's glory days were during the Napoleonic wars, pre-VC, of course. Not much combat action following (weren't at Crimea, for example), and only two soldiers have the VC: both were mentioned in the "later history" section. However, I have added a section under badges and decorations to highlight their actions. Gwinva (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved Geoff Plourde (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

• In general, the article is neutral, recording victories and defeats with the same voice and treatment
• For an article about the 52nd Regiment, too little is said about the 2nd battalion, with an undue emphasis being placed on the 1st as if it were the ‘real’ 52nd regiment. The regimental history given here contains an excellent account of the 1st battalion, and it should be brought up to that standard for the 2nd.

• I have added a paragraph under "Regimental structure" explaining the see-saw existence of the 2/52nd. It only existed during the Napoleonic wars. I plan to have a good look at the whole Napoleonic war section, following your comments above. During my rewrite/copyedit I'll beef up the 2/52nd stuff. Walcheron Fever and so forth. (Not that anyone seems to much care about Graham's attack on Bergen op Zoom: not even a WP article!) Gwinva (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Y done. Gwinva (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved Geoff Plourde (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Stable
The article is not subject to edit wars and is stable

Illustrated
The article is adequately illustrated

Good luck with the modifications, and very well done to all involved in this article up to now. Chrisfow (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As the reviewer has been inactive, I will take over and review this article within the next 24 hours. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you remove the references in the lead if the statements are sourced in the actual article? (see WP:LEAD) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed excess cites in lead, since they are found elsewhere. I have left two: one is a direct quote, one is an indirect but contentious claim ("the most celebrated").

Thank you Geoff for taking over the review. Gwinva (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to promote. Geoff Plourde (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

...and I concur. =) Congrats! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 15:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have been inactive and apologise to all concerned. Congratulations, very well earned! Chrisfow (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)