Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Royal Scots Greys

Royal Scots Greys

Would like to get this article peer reviewed. Made some significant additions to the article. Thank you. --HistorianBell 03:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

• The lead could be expanded, up to four paragraphs if need be;
• alt text could be added to the images;
• There is one disambig link that needs fixing (Maas) per the WP:Featured article tools
• There is some inconsistency in spelling conventions, with a mixture of British and American English (e.g honour and honor, colour and color, etc.)
• Check for consistency in style of citations. At least one citation with a page range does not us "pp.", but instead uses "p.". See citation # 61, where mostly you have used "pp." for page ranges.
• There is some inconsistency in terminology. You refer to both the Great War and the First World War; I think you should use only one name, whatever that may be.
• As per the above point, you use both the term Tsar and Czar in the Regimental traditions section

Anyway, that is it for now. Sorry it is just a quick look. Good work so far. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight

Just a few points:

• Expand the lede. Should include most of the stuff listed here: Wikipedia:MILMOS#Unit or formation
• The years in the section and sub-section headers are really distracting. Either remove them, or move them to the ends, so they're not right up against the TOC numbers.
• The numerous subsections under History are distracting. It would look nicer if it was broken down into small units (no pun intended). Some of the lvl 3 headers, especially those with numerous lvl. 4 subsections could be made into individual lvl 2 sections (e.g. Great War, World War II, Napoleonic Wars)
• Are there any notable commanders that can be added under the Commanders section in the infobox?
• What makes [1] a reliable source. Some of your other web-based sources, are also a bit sketchy in terms of reliability, but should preferably be replaced.
• Link and explain more relevant terms Sybourg's brigade, Moselle River, Treaty of Aix-la-chapelle, Pragmatic army, Battle of Salamanca etc.
• The victory at Malplaquet is mentioned before it actually occurs in the 1693-1714 section.
• I saw a couple spelling mistakes (Gryes=>Greys)
• Try to avoid using numeric forms of small numbers (except in Dates of course). For example, in the Campaign in the Low Countries section, you use "4 new troops to 9 troops..." and almost immediately afterwards, you use "Four troops of Scots Greys"
• Capitalize low countries
• Peninsula War => Peninsular War

Good job, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dana boomer

Overall, I agree with the comments raised above. Lead expansion is definitely needed, and alt text for A-level and FAC (although not generally asked for at GAN). All of the subsections under the History section are a little distracting, I agree with Patar knight that some of them could be removed and others made into different level headings. Other than that:

• What makes the image File:ScotsGreys.jpg (under the Waterloo section) fair use? I don't see anything that gives a source or publication date, and I highly doubt that the original uploader was the one who created the original painting. The same with File:Scotland Forever.jpg. In general, I would contact an image expert (User:Awadewit and User:NuclearWarfare are two good ones) to check out your images, especially before going to FAC. There are several that I am iffy on the permissions of, but I'm not an expert on copyright, and so am not the best person to be judging them... :)
  • I'm not either. I may have used them by mistake after finding them in Wikicommons or they might have been some of the ones who which were on the page when I found it. Either way, I'll look into it. Its my understanding that the Butler one is probably good to use, but I will double check that one. --HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• The captions on all of your images are really long. Per MOS:IMAGES#Captions, image captions should be succinct.
• Per MOS:IMAGES#Images, avoid sandwiching text between images.
• Some expansion on why the "Notable members of the Scots Greys" are notable would be nice.
• Some of the web references needs publishers added. Also agree wtih Patar knight on what makes the Spanish Succession website (Ref #9) a reliable source.
  • It seems fairly reliable and checks with the other sources I have seen. Additionally, although his footnoting could be better in form, they ones that I have looked up check out.--HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• What makes Ref #22 (Scotswar.com) a reliable source? The site itself says that "...we make no guarantees as to the currency, accuracy, or quality of information stored here."
• What makes Ref #23 (Britishbattles.com) a reliable source? Same for refs #31, 36, 55
• What makes Ref #54 (Ensign Ewart) a reliable source? It appears to be a pub website...
• What makes Ref #84 (Anglo Boer War) a reliable source? Same for refs #86, 90, 92
  • The Boer War site reference will be changed. What that website has done is taken the text of a public domain available history of the Boer War. As far as I can tell, now that I have compared the two, its pretty much word for word.--HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• What makes Ref #112 (Ian Paterson) a reliable source? The site itself says that "As far as I know the information is as accurate as possible", which doesn't sound very definite. Same for ref #114, 128
• What makes Ref #119 (Milhist) a reliable source?
• What makes Ref #120 (Bardsabode) a reliable source? On first glance it looks like a military source, but then has author information attributed to the guy who runs the website, which is a photography sales and hobby site. Same for ref #121
• Ref #129 (Warlinks) is deadlinking.
  • Fixed --HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• What makes Ref #131 (Britisharmedforces.com) a reliable source? The site itself says "This is not a military historical site," and seems to be geared more towards individual rememberances then factual history (nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make the greatest source).
  • Its been listed (and currently is) as a site good for referencing on the British military history task force page. --HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not saying that all of the above are definitely unreliable - simply asking what proves that the above have been written by experts, quoted or recommended by large-scale magazines/newspapers/tv shows, etc. You may want to check with a reference expert (User:Ealdgyth is good) for a more expert judgement on the above and all other sources. User:Fifelfoo may also be a good one to check with regarding the high quality of published sources before going to FAC.

I hope the above comments help. I will be watchlisting this page, so please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll work on the others as I have time. --HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

I have made some changes to image locations etc, some comments are;

• Reference style you should add a list of sources used see todays FA Elwood Haynes for example. Also use Template:Cite web for internet sources.

• Unless the notable members section is complete, I would delete it. Keyes and Finnes etc could be used in the article.

• The info box is misleading it appears they were an armoured regiment from 1678. I would add Cavalry Corps (United Kingdom) before Royal Armoured Corps with dates. Same for role heavy cavalry before armoured regt.

• Also in the inf box citations are needed for the nicknames and motto.

• The Waterloo section with three images is one to many I would select the two you like best and delete the third.

• In the Great war section the first use of BEF and Brigadier-General Gough I Corps and the battles mentioned should be linked.

• Second world war BEF needs linking.

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)