This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Imperial Yeomanry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Imperial Yeomanry was a Warfare 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. | ||||||||||
|
The article seems well written, easily approachable, NPOV, covering the subject nicely. However, most of it has been written very recently, and as the subject is fairly unfamiliar, it needs some 1-2 months to be contested. If it seems stable, GA status seems fine. -- Drieakko 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm renominating the article. I added citations and it's been a few months with no major changes. - FireForEffect - 03:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This article needs more images. There are plenty on the Google Image search, but since I'm relatively new I'm not sure which ones are alright to use. If a more experienced member could add some, I would be grateful. - FireForEffect - 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi - just to let you know that I've taken on the Good Article review for Imperial Yeomanry, and you'll be pleased to hear that it no longer meets the quick-fail criteria ;) I'll have a thorough look at it, probably over the weekend, and post a full review below. Regards EyeSerene TALK 17:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have assessed the article under the Good Article criteria, and put the review on hold pending the points below being addressed. Hold status allows about a week to improve the article - it's not too far off GA status so I don't think this is unrealistic, although if you have any questions/problems don't hesitate to get in touch.
As each point is dealt with, it would be helpful for tracking progress if the editor(s) could strike the comment through and add {{done}} to the end (this produces a tick as follows: Done).
Detailed comments:
1. Well written FAIL
Although the text is generally fine, it would benefit from a copyedit. In places it contains awkward phrasing that could be reworded for clarity, and there are one or two departures from the Manual of Style.
a) Prose
This mainly relates to a copyedit for grammar and clarity. I have picked out a few examples below (others exist!):
b) Compliance with Manual of Style
Citations follow the MoS, and are mostly in the recommended format including an access date for web cites. Sections are in the proper order, and language is consistent. There are a few minor points though:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable WEAK PASS
I believe this is well-enough sourced for a Good Article, although it wouldn't pass WP:FAC. In particular, the Second contingent section needs more in-line citations, especially where facts are given that could be challenged (eg "1 officer and 16 men were killed (with another officer and 3 more men later dying of wounds), and 400 were captured.")
There is no evidence of original research in the article (assuming sentences like the one above can be sourced!).
3. Broad coverage PASS
The article sufficiently covers the subject, and remains focused on the Yeomanry regiment throughout.
4. Neutral PASS
The article is written in a neutral tone and contains no commentary.
5. Stability PASS
From the article history there is no evidence of an ongoing edit-war or regular substantial changes.
6. Images FAIL
Although the images used cite Fair Use policy, neither seems particlularly relevant to the article, which is essential to justify Fair Use:
The ideal way to resolve this would be to add in the relevant information, but if time doesn't permit, it might be best to remove these images altogether. An article can't fail GA review through lack of images... but it will if there are problems with any images used.
Any comments etc, leave a note on my talk page. I'll check back here in 7 days if I haven't heard anything. All the best ;) EyeSerene TALK 17:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have failed this article because, although some improvements have been made, the points in my review above have not yet been fully addressed. Please feel free to re-nominate after a suitable period, or if you disagree with this decision, you can nominate the article for a Good Article review. Regards EyeSerene TALK 11:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone clarify the date this regiment was disbanded? I have the military records of a relative in the Imperial Yeomanry with the date 1914. 212.139.85.154 ( talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Imperial Yeomanry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Imperial Yeomanry was a Warfare 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. | ||||||||||
|
The article seems well written, easily approachable, NPOV, covering the subject nicely. However, most of it has been written very recently, and as the subject is fairly unfamiliar, it needs some 1-2 months to be contested. If it seems stable, GA status seems fine. -- Drieakko 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm renominating the article. I added citations and it's been a few months with no major changes. - FireForEffect - 03:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This article needs more images. There are plenty on the Google Image search, but since I'm relatively new I'm not sure which ones are alright to use. If a more experienced member could add some, I would be grateful. - FireForEffect - 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi - just to let you know that I've taken on the Good Article review for Imperial Yeomanry, and you'll be pleased to hear that it no longer meets the quick-fail criteria ;) I'll have a thorough look at it, probably over the weekend, and post a full review below. Regards EyeSerene TALK 17:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have assessed the article under the Good Article criteria, and put the review on hold pending the points below being addressed. Hold status allows about a week to improve the article - it's not too far off GA status so I don't think this is unrealistic, although if you have any questions/problems don't hesitate to get in touch.
As each point is dealt with, it would be helpful for tracking progress if the editor(s) could strike the comment through and add {{done}} to the end (this produces a tick as follows: Done).
Detailed comments:
1. Well written FAIL
Although the text is generally fine, it would benefit from a copyedit. In places it contains awkward phrasing that could be reworded for clarity, and there are one or two departures from the Manual of Style.
a) Prose
This mainly relates to a copyedit for grammar and clarity. I have picked out a few examples below (others exist!):
b) Compliance with Manual of Style
Citations follow the MoS, and are mostly in the recommended format including an access date for web cites. Sections are in the proper order, and language is consistent. There are a few minor points though:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable WEAK PASS
I believe this is well-enough sourced for a Good Article, although it wouldn't pass WP:FAC. In particular, the Second contingent section needs more in-line citations, especially where facts are given that could be challenged (eg "1 officer and 16 men were killed (with another officer and 3 more men later dying of wounds), and 400 were captured.")
There is no evidence of original research in the article (assuming sentences like the one above can be sourced!).
3. Broad coverage PASS
The article sufficiently covers the subject, and remains focused on the Yeomanry regiment throughout.
4. Neutral PASS
The article is written in a neutral tone and contains no commentary.
5. Stability PASS
From the article history there is no evidence of an ongoing edit-war or regular substantial changes.
6. Images FAIL
Although the images used cite Fair Use policy, neither seems particlularly relevant to the article, which is essential to justify Fair Use:
The ideal way to resolve this would be to add in the relevant information, but if time doesn't permit, it might be best to remove these images altogether. An article can't fail GA review through lack of images... but it will if there are problems with any images used.
Any comments etc, leave a note on my talk page. I'll check back here in 7 days if I haven't heard anything. All the best ;) EyeSerene TALK 17:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have failed this article because, although some improvements have been made, the points in my review above have not yet been fully addressed. Please feel free to re-nominate after a suitable period, or if you disagree with this decision, you can nominate the article for a Good Article review. Regards EyeSerene TALK 11:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone clarify the date this regiment was disbanded? I have the military records of a relative in the Imperial Yeomanry with the date 1914. 212.139.85.154 ( talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)