Wikipedia

Talk:Wiltshire Regiment

Latest comment: 2 years ago by JF42 in topic Battle honours: Louisbourg 1758
Learn more about this page
Former good article nomineeWiltshire Regiment was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
January 9, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Wrong

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page is all wrong. The 1st battalion of the Wilts Regiment was raised in 1756 at Torbay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.236.71 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

That was the predecessor formation, the 62nd. I've split the article now to better reflect that they were distinct units. Shimgray | talk | 16:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wiltshire Regiment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, three to four good sized paragraphs would be appropriate. The lead should summarize the entire article, without including new information.
    • There are a lot of really short paragraphs in the article, which make it choppy and harder to read. Could some of these be combined?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • Web references need to have publishers and access dates added in many cases.
    • There are a bunch of dead links in the references, see here.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    • I believe the image File:Ginginpainting.jpg needs to specify the painter and the date (or approximate date).
    • Some of your image captions are quite long. Please work to make them more concise.
    • The images appear to be crowded towards the top half of the article, with text sandwiched between images and a general cluttered feeling. However, the bottom half of the article has only one image, and large blocks of text with no images are present. Perhaps move some of the images in the top part of the article to the bottom part?
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

The above is the result of my first pass through the article. Once work has begun on these (especially work on the publishers in web refs and removing the dead links), I will complete a more thorough review of source reliability and prose. Overall, it looks like a nice article, and it's obvious that you've put a lot of work into it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

As no work has been completed on this article during the time period of the review, I am failing this article's GA nomination. I look forward to seeing it back at GAN when the above issues have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

99th. Regiment.

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. The 99th. Regiment, besides starting of in Van Diemens Land Tasmania (australia); also was despatched to Western Australia(Swan River Colony) in 1849 approx. Was here in 1850 for maybe 10 years. This does not appear in your chapter, Western Australia, nor makes mention of the fact in the story concerning them in Tasmania.

I am really busy writing a book on some W.A. history and can definitely associate them with this State.

Thank you Kind regards Darrel McGuiness58.167.199.113 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That was a predecessor. See 99th (Lanarkshire) Regiment of Foot. Moonraker (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wiltshire Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Wiltshire Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Battle honours: Louisbourg 1758

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This retrospective battle honour from 1758, listed in the cited source <regiments.org> has been omitted.

"Louisburg" [SIC] first authorised in 1882, is listed in <regiments.org> as "belatedly awarded 1910 for service of 62nd Regiment"

See: http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/062Wilts.htm

JF42 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wiltshire_Regiment&oldid=1213274505"