![]() | Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Started this stub: will add more as my Wikipedia ability grows - this is my first article to start editing from scratch. Kim dent brown 11:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Added WWI and started WWII sections. Added guidon and Earl of Wessex images Kim dent brown 12:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
First draft of page completed - all feedback welcome! Kim dent brown 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Kevin Myers and Cheif Captain for the infobox and correction of referencing. Have added more categories and further detail to te infobox, also another photo. Kim dent brown 10:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Requested A-class review so I can get feedback to further improve article. Kim dent brown 13:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the assessment Kirill, and for correcting me on the archiving. Kim dent brown 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Royal wiltshire yeomanry.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:NZ fern.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. First off, I'd like to make two points. First, the article is informative and well-written. I commend all editors for their hard work. Second, I apologize for taking a ridiculously inordinate amount of time to do this review. I tried to be thorough to make up for the large time gap. Here we go ;)
First, the checklists....
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 7, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be
reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.
Lazulilasher (
talk)
18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Then, because I am not a military expert, I took a look at the WP:MILHIST MOS. And....here is what they have regarding units:
The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey:
The article can be structured along these lines:
Also, here are some comments: -Early History: What is the significance of being awarded the title "Royal"? (I'm just curious-not required for GA) -World War I: Are the 6th Wilts the Wiltshire Regiment? -WW2: What is lorried infantry? -LEAD: I'd like to see this have a more extended coverage of the unit's historical involvement in conflict. -Wiki: I did some wikification on the article, but there may be more that can be inter-linked. For example, do the other units/weapons/places mentioned in the article have their own articles? If so, perhaps they should be wikified? -Precision: The article is extremely precise. Great job.
Ok, I think that is about it. If you folks have any questions or need clarification or don't agree with the above, feel free to comment on my talk page or here. Overall, the article is of high quality. The comments above are fairly minor (the only significant mention, I believe, is the Lead), thus I am placing the article on hold. Thanks for your contributions! Lazulilasher ( talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Follow up to GAN Review Hi! Thanks for everyone's great work. This article passes the GA nomination, and is thus a Good Article per the criteria. There is still a bit of wikifying to be done, but I'll do it today :) Congratulations to the good work of all of the editors! Lazulilasher ( talk) 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the thorough and helpful review. The comments are so precise I have no doubt I can clear them up this weekend (all help from other editors also gratefully received, esp. copyediting) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, have completed the requested changes as far as I am able. See comments below:
I think the article is ready for final review now - will post Lazulilasher and say I've made the changes. Of course any further attention from other editors (esp copyediting) would be very welcome. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As I udnerstand it, and as most of the top level articles here seem to agree, the Militia and Yeomanry were distinct entities. The Militia was infantry only, and there was even an element of conscription, the Yeomanry were cavalry, and as members provided their own mount, generally of a slightly higher socal class. David Underdown ( talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/SearchResults.aspx?GeoType=London&st=adv&sb=date&hedocid=1143692&FDay=15&FMth=3&FYr=1939&TDay=31&TMth=12&TYr=1948&exact=Royal%20Wiltshire%20Yeomanry& this search turns up one fo the DSOs, all the MCs, half the MMs (and a bonus MBE) - individual Gazette issues could be added as further referencing if desired. David Underdown ( talk) 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm tagging the statement In 1797, the independent troops were amalgamated into a unit called The Regiment of Wiltshire Yeomanry Cavalry... as failed verification. The source describes only a meeting to discuss the Provisional Cavalry Act. The provisional cavalry was a separate entity to the yeomanry, and anyway the source makes no explicit mention of the formation of any regiment. Factotem ( talk) 13:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Started this stub: will add more as my Wikipedia ability grows - this is my first article to start editing from scratch. Kim dent brown 11:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Added WWI and started WWII sections. Added guidon and Earl of Wessex images Kim dent brown 12:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
First draft of page completed - all feedback welcome! Kim dent brown 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Kevin Myers and Cheif Captain for the infobox and correction of referencing. Have added more categories and further detail to te infobox, also another photo. Kim dent brown 10:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Requested A-class review so I can get feedback to further improve article. Kim dent brown 13:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the assessment Kirill, and for correcting me on the archiving. Kim dent brown 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Royal wiltshire yeomanry.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:NZ fern.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. First off, I'd like to make two points. First, the article is informative and well-written. I commend all editors for their hard work. Second, I apologize for taking a ridiculously inordinate amount of time to do this review. I tried to be thorough to make up for the large time gap. Here we go ;)
First, the checklists....
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 7, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be
reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.
Lazulilasher (
talk)
18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Then, because I am not a military expert, I took a look at the WP:MILHIST MOS. And....here is what they have regarding units:
The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey:
The article can be structured along these lines:
Also, here are some comments: -Early History: What is the significance of being awarded the title "Royal"? (I'm just curious-not required for GA) -World War I: Are the 6th Wilts the Wiltshire Regiment? -WW2: What is lorried infantry? -LEAD: I'd like to see this have a more extended coverage of the unit's historical involvement in conflict. -Wiki: I did some wikification on the article, but there may be more that can be inter-linked. For example, do the other units/weapons/places mentioned in the article have their own articles? If so, perhaps they should be wikified? -Precision: The article is extremely precise. Great job.
Ok, I think that is about it. If you folks have any questions or need clarification or don't agree with the above, feel free to comment on my talk page or here. Overall, the article is of high quality. The comments above are fairly minor (the only significant mention, I believe, is the Lead), thus I am placing the article on hold. Thanks for your contributions! Lazulilasher ( talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Follow up to GAN Review Hi! Thanks for everyone's great work. This article passes the GA nomination, and is thus a Good Article per the criteria. There is still a bit of wikifying to be done, but I'll do it today :) Congratulations to the good work of all of the editors! Lazulilasher ( talk) 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the thorough and helpful review. The comments are so precise I have no doubt I can clear them up this weekend (all help from other editors also gratefully received, esp. copyediting) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, have completed the requested changes as far as I am able. See comments below:
I think the article is ready for final review now - will post Lazulilasher and say I've made the changes. Of course any further attention from other editors (esp copyediting) would be very welcome. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As I udnerstand it, and as most of the top level articles here seem to agree, the Militia and Yeomanry were distinct entities. The Militia was infantry only, and there was even an element of conscription, the Yeomanry were cavalry, and as members provided their own mount, generally of a slightly higher socal class. David Underdown ( talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/SearchResults.aspx?GeoType=London&st=adv&sb=date&hedocid=1143692&FDay=15&FMth=3&FYr=1939&TDay=31&TMth=12&TYr=1948&exact=Royal%20Wiltshire%20Yeomanry& this search turns up one fo the DSOs, all the MCs, half the MMs (and a bonus MBE) - individual Gazette issues could be added as further referencing if desired. David Underdown ( talk) 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm tagging the statement In 1797, the independent troops were amalgamated into a unit called The Regiment of Wiltshire Yeomanry Cavalry... as failed verification. The source describes only a meeting to discuss the Provisional Cavalry Act. The provisional cavalry was a separate entity to the yeomanry, and anyway the source makes no explicit mention of the formation of any regiment. Factotem ( talk) 13:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)