Jump to content

Talk:Leicestershire Yeomanry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleLeicestershire Yeomanry was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
April 16, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 10, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Good Article Nomination

[edit]

Good morning (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 03:09, Wednesday December 18 2024 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:

  1. Well-written: Pass
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Pass

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!

An interesting article, --Bulleid Pacific 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC). |} A decent, neutral treatment of the topic, well written, concise, well referenced/structured, prose good. Keep up the good work, up to GA standard.[reply]

GA Sweeps (on hold)

[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • The lead does not at this stage adequately cover the article's topic, as it only briefly touches on parts of the history, organisation and development of the article. On top of this, it is only one long sentance, which is a little exhausting to read.
  • More needed on the regiment's role in the militia between 1794 and 1803.
  • (LYC 1803.11.01-1860)? Is this a Harvard reference?
  • Much of the prose is bitty, with a lot of short paragraphs and sentances which do not make clear reading and must be tidied up.
  • Its says they were involved in keeping the peace on several occassions, but only one example is given.
  • What did they do in South Africa?
  • Why is Frezenberg given such immense prominence? I realise it is important, but far more is needed on the other Great War actions to provide balance.
  • "Hold hard Leicester Yeomanry!" should not be BOLD.
  • Again, after Frezenberg we skim through the next two years.
  • Which battles did they serve in during the campaign in Northern Europe?
  • What purpose does the timeline serve, can it be presented in a more attractive way? Its a bit untidy at the moment.
  • All web sources need last access dates.

This article has substantial problems and will take a lot to do up. There are numerous other problems which I will deal with once the above are addressed. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The objections seem to fall basically into stylistic and content ones. Leaving aside all the stylistic issues (I can't stand the timeline, myself), I think you're asking too much on the content end. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a synthesis of the existing secondary literature...
  1. 2 - this information basically does not exist in the sources, so it's unlikely it was anything remarkable. Mooched around waiting for an invasion and occasionally turned out to intimidate the local mob, probably.
  2. 5 - Again, unclear. They were sent there, they presumably did routine tasks. Detailed records of the activity of specific IY companies is pretty hard to come by without digging into primary source material - I don't think I've ever seen it in a short work like this unless there's something particularly notable to mention.
  3. 6 - Because it's basically the main event; it's well-documented, significant, and unique. The other engagements are simply not discussed in any real detail in the regimental histories; as for general histories of those engagements, the Great War was large enough that a single battalion was unlikely to be dealt with specifically unless it did something unusual. Noting those simply as "happened; unit was involved" is fairly conventional for an article such as this.
  4. 8 - again, if the references don't go into details...
  5. 9 - Very hard to say. We can produce a list of what Guards Armoured did, but this would be slightly inaccurate - we don't know when the regiment was or wasn't involved, which times it was committed or which times it was held in reserve, and it certainly wouldn't address the times it was detached to support someone else. Artillery units tend to have service histories which boil down to a tedious "June 3rd, did X. June 4th, did X. June 5th, played cards" etc - this doesn't make for good encyclopedic content! Conversely, they don't usually appear by name in the more general histories unless there was something remarkable - so we don't get much help there.
To summarise all of the above - with regards to the actual content issues, I don't think the information you're asking for is really needed for the article; we're not being any vaguer than any comparable reference work would be, as far as I can tell. The overemphasis on Frezenberg is perhaps problematic, though; it might be worth cutting this down rather than fleshing out otherwise insignificant events to correlate. Shimgray | talk | 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take all your points, but to counter I'd like to draw your attention to an equivalent article which I feel does provide adequate levels of detail in its regimental history: King's Regiment (Liverpool). Here a well laid out and informative lead brings a reader into a detailed discussion of the regiment's actions through its history with full extrapolation on its role in the actions described. There is then a short list of VC winners and one of battle honours. I am fully aware of the difficulties in some cases of finding reliable references for things, but I cannot believe that the official regimental history is this sparse in detail (it is not I notice used as an inline citation). I suggest that more detailed sources be found because this level of detail is too low for a modern GA. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the comparison is that the King's is a fairly major infantry regiment that fielded twenty-something battalions in the Great War; the LY is a minor cavalry regiment which fielded one. In the Second World War, it fielded five front-line infantry battalions whilst the LY fielded two battalions in support roles. There's simply a lot more history to draw on, and (as can be seen from the sources list) a lot more people writing about it.
There is probably a lot more detail that can be added with extensive perusal of the unit diaries, etc, but - outside specific vignettes of critical situations - is it essential to dig it out? These articles are intended as overall histories within the context of an encyclopedia, not as comprehensive monographs, and our own criteria use phrases like "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details". I'm not desperately bothered about article rating, but I do get a bit worried over the insistence on more and more detail being found for minor subjects. Shimgray | talk | 00:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the Further resources section (which should be further reading) lists four sources which appear to provide some context and haven't been used in the article at all (I know there is one footnote, but it doesn't give a page number). There must be more out there, and I don't think this article is GA quality without more information on the unit's actions in the two world wars and elsewhere. Since you strongly disagree, I suggest this article goes to WP:GAR to obtain a wider community consensus.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I suggest you take a look at Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry, an equivalent article which recently passed for GA. I personally would probably have requested more from it before passing it for GA, but you can see the difference in the articles. The RWY gives far better coverage of the units history than this article does.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its been seven days since I last posted here and nothing has happened. I'm afraid this is going to be delisted. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Leicestershire Yeomanry. 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.

checkY 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 20:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Leicestershire Yeomanry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leicestershire Yeomanry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leicestershire_Yeomanry&oldid=1208137840"