Talk:King's Regiment (Liverpool)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	King's Regiment (Liverpool) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 6, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed September 14, 2006 WikiProject A-class review Approved September 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed March 15, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed February 21, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has passed an A-Class review. This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force World War II task force

The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: SoLando (talk · contribs) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

[edit] GA Review

I have placed the GA Nomination On-Hold due some minor issues listed below. This article is very close to passing so please contact me once these concerns have been addressed so that I can finish the review. In my assessment this article has some outstanding attributes and I can easily see it continuing to progress to a Feature Status Article. To aid in that progression, I will integrate into my comment some suggestions For FA Consideration that are not "make or break" issues for GA status but are improvements that will help towards FA.
Good Article Criteria

1. It is well written. - Pass

• The article is extremely well written, with compelling prose and a smooth flow through transitional topics. In fact, it might even be a tad too well-written. While words such as amalgamating and envisaged are fine for a High-School and adult reading level, it is probably over the reading level of many of the school age students who might want to use this article as reference for school work. In general we want to try to write to the most common reading level that we can. (normally a middle school level)
• The article does an exceptional job of making use of wiki-links to offshoot topics without overlinking.
• I was also particularly impressed with the article's styling of quotations.
• For FA Consideration I would work on the few red-links that there are in the article, like Polygon Wood, Corps de Fer and Festubert
• For FA Consideration I would consider revising the the Reference in accordance to WP:Cite. The most glaring issue is probably the abbreviated footnotes before the full length book reference. Example: The first footnote is Chandler (2003), p188-89. Being the first thing you see, you don't know what that is till later in the page when you see the full book reference of Chandler, David (2003), The Oxford History of the British Army, Oxford Paperbacks ISBN 0-19-280311-5. It would be more formal to include that reference first (either as an expanded footnote or with the entire book section first) and that way every following reference to Chandler (2003) will be easily identifiable.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass

• The article is well referenced and more or less easily verifiable. The one main concern is mentioned above but that is not a matter to derail GA consideration. The sources used are all reliable sources and I'm exceptionally pleased that the vast majority of them are "offline" actual book references. Excellent work.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Pass

• The article gives a vast and broad treatment of the various engagement of the The King's Regiment and it's development. Despite this vastness, each engagement is given applicable and concise detail. The article doesn't get bogged down at any particular point, yet the reader leaves it feeling that they have a solid grasp of the historical significance of the regiment.
• For FA Consideration you will want to expand the External Links section with relevant and informative links that follow WP:EL. Ideally I would say look for 3-5 links additional links.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

• The article gives an impassion presentation in a very NPOV tone.

5. It is stable - Pass

• The article has progressed gracefully and has been exceptionally stable.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - On-hold Pass

• The image tags on Image:King's Regiment (Liverpool), 1891.jpg and Image:Bootle War Memorial, 1922 .jpg are obsolete. Please correct.
• Other then the two issues list above, the images are terrific. They are well placed, easily distinguished and serves as exceptional visual aids to the context of the article. Good job.
  

Overall, I have to say this is one of the best articles that I have had the privilege to review. I commend the editors extensively for their work and wholeheartedly encourage the editors to continue towards FA status. I have no doubt that the image issue will quickly address and then I will gladly pass the article. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 19:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that the images have now been properly tagged and I'm pleased to pass this article as a Good Article. As I mention before, I feel this is an excellent article and look forward to seeing it as a Featured Article. In my opinion, I would submit it soon. It may not qualify on the first try (Several sets of eyes can normally pick out more areas for improvement then one) but with the feedback from the FAC process, I'm sure that there won't be much needed to reach that plateau. If there is anything I can do to help, please don't hesitate to give me a ring. Agne 16:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spion Kop

Is it true that the King's Regiment (Liverpool) led the assault on Spion Kop? If so, it might be worth a mention. smb 11:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That does appear to be a common misconception. Although many Liverpudlians (or "Liverpolitans" ;-) fought in the battle, the vast majority served with county-defined regiments such as the Lancashire Fusiliers. The 1st King's were confined to Ladysmith for the duration of the siege. SoLando (Talk) 12:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm now looking at The Football Grounds of England and Wales (1983) which reads: "Reporters, among them Winston Churchill, described the 'astounding inefficiency' of the British artillery, calling Spion Kop that 'acre of massacre, that complete shambles'. Leading this futile assault on the hill were the 2nd Royal Lancaster Regiment and the 2nd Royal Lancashire Fusiliers." I have amended Spion Kop (stadia) accordingly. Thankyou. smb 14:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Although this has been passed, I have a few comments for improvements below.

• I'd like to see some sources for the history of the unit's activities in Burma in the 1880s.
• Generally, more thorough sourcing of facts and paragraphs might help any future promotion intentions for the article, which is written to a very high standard.

The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)