# Talk:King's Regiment (Liverpool)

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)

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)

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)

In the list of the Regiment's battle honours, 'Archangel 1918-19' and 'Afghanistan 1919' were included under the sub heading 'The Great War'. I have moved two battle honours from this sub heading and included them separately, as I do not believe that it is correct. The Russian civil war and the Third Anglo-Afghan War were separate conflicts and as such their battle honours should not be grouped with those of the Great War. Please correct me if anyone thinks that this is in correct.AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the internal link associated with the Afghanistan 1878-80 battle honour as it was linked to the Third Afghan War (1919), not the Second. Additionally, I have changed the link associated with the North West Frontier 1915 to the military history version of this page, not the location page as I feel it adds more to the reader's understanding of the conflict should they want to know more about that particular battle honour. Comments welcome. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The man without headgear is my Grandad, Major H. H. McDortch MBE. Now passed away. In the photo, he was getting his men to prepare bunkers to sleep in.
Also, with permission of The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, we have created a facebook page if you would like to add this on to this page.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Liverpool/The-Duke-of-Lancasters-Regiment-Association/128612733850477
94.11.56.78 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on King's Regiment (Liverpool). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060919102145/http://www.army.mod.uk/kings/music.htm to http://www.army.mod.uk/kings/music.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630103310/http://www.1914-1918.net:80/kitchen.htm to http://www.1914-1918.net/kitchen.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060920105838/http://www.army.mod.uk/lancs/history/index.htm to http://www.army.mod.uk/lancs/history/index.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070416002239/http://www.regiments.org:80/regiments/uk/volmil-england/vinf-no/la-K5.htm to http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/volmil-england/vinf-no/la-K5.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060103230958/http://www.regiments.org:80/regiments/uk/inf/008KingL.htm to http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/008KingL.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y 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 14:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on King's Regiment (Liverpool). 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:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/008KingL.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101203194623/http://www.liverpoolscottish.org.uk/history.htm to http://www.liverpoolscottish.org.uk/history.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y 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 19:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on King's Regiment (Liverpool). 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060102084707/http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk:80/liverpoollife/collections/citysoldiers/ to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/liverpoollife/collections/citysoldiers/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on King's Regiment (Liverpool). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121234439/http://www.korbr.co.uk/KORBR/z1%20future%20of%20KORBR%201.htm to http://www.korbr.co.uk/KORBR/z1%20future%20of%20KORBR%201.htm
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) 05:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on King's Regiment (Liverpool). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205091657/http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConNarrative.165&chapterId=1264 to http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConNarrative.165&chapterId=1264
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) 19:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on King's Regiment (Liverpool). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029205202/http://www.nam.ac.uk/research/famous-units/kings-regiment-liverpool to http://www.nam.ac.uk/research/famous-units/kings-regiment-liverpool
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921044515/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/roh-korea/kingsregt.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/roh-korea/kingsregt.html
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) 18:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This article seems to split the history between 8th (The King's) Regiment of Foot (1685-1881) and King's Regiment (Liverpool) (1881-1958).
On the one hand, I'm not sure that's the best way to do it (the 1881 changes were merely a retitling, and the other 24 regiments which were unchanged in 1881 have a single article covering early & post-1881 history). On the other, this is a very substantial article and it might make sense to split.
However, at some point this article seems to have lost any link or explanation of where the early history went - there's no link pointing to 8th King's, and no early history section, so the lead vaguely mentions two centuries of earlier history and then the body text starts abruptly in 1881. Will see if I can think of the best way to fix this but noting here in case there are any thoughts. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)