# Talk:Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry

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 imagesKim 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:

1. Well written?:   Not bad. I did a brief copy-edit, but I think some of the prose could use minor work, specifically by removing extra words, etc. I'll be happy to help if need be.
2. Factually accurate?: 
3. Broad in coverage?: 
4. Neutral point of view?: 
5. Article stability? 
6. Images?:  Fair use rationale is given or image is in public domain.

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:


#### Unit or formation
The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey:

The formal name of the unit, its abbreviation, and its nickname(s).  
What is the unit's country or allegiance?  
What service (Air Force, Army, or Navy) was the unit part of?  
When was it formed?    DONE Y
If the unit no longer exists, when was it disbanded or deactivated?  DONE Y
Please add this to the lead, with a brief explanation Lazulilasher (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC) DONE Y Good work.
In what notable battles, operations, or wars did the unit participate? 
Please add a bit more info/context to this area. I noted below as well. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC) YEP! Y
The article can be structured along these lines:

The unit's history.  Why was it formed?  Who formed it?  Where and how has the unit served in peacetime and war?  Who has commanded it? 
Very good. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If the unit still exists, where is it now?  What higher-level formation is the unit assigned to, if any?  What is its current role?  
The unit's traditions.  What mascots does it have?  What anniversaries does it celebrate? 
What gallantry awards (such as the Medal of Honor, Param Vir Chakra, or Victoria Cross) have been awarded to members of the unit?  What unit awards (such as battle honours or presidential citations) has the unit received? 
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:

If the unit no longer exists, when was it disbanded or deactivated? Please add this to the lead, with a brief explanation
The unit still exists as sub-units of two other units: this is made clear in the lead.
In what notable battles, operations, or wars did the unit participate? Please add a bit more info/context to this area.
Have expanded the info in the lead (although conscious of keeping the lead to a reasonably short length.)
Early History: What is the significance of being awarded the title "Royal"? (I'm just curious-not required for GA)
Have looked again in the Regimental history and it says no more than the date - no specific reason given for the honorific.
World War I: Are the 6th Wilts the Wiltshire Regiment?
Yes- have made this clear.
WW2: What is lorried infantry?
Motorised infantry - have changed text and added wikilink
LEAD: I'd like to see this have a more extended coverage of the unit's historical involvement in conflict.
Extended a little, but don't want to simply duplicate what's in the body of the article. Hope this is the right balance.
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?
Have wikified all the places, formations and equipment I could sensibly find. Hopefully it's not a complete mess of blue links: I don't think any of them are completely gratuitous.
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)

Great job! (and speedy too!) This article now passes the GA criteria and as such has been listed as a GA. I will look it over for more copyediting in a bit, but at this point it definitely passes all criteria. Congratulations to all involved. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:22, 12 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)

Yes, that's my understanding too. Is the text of the article confusing in this respect? I'll have another look, but if you can see it with fresh eyes all the better! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't any more becuase i changed it but in the "Early history" section section it said something like "the Militia, of which the Yeomanry was part was not liable for service overseas", and soemthing similar realting to the fomration of the Territorial Force.  David Underdown (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes - just seen that! Should have checked the article before the talk page.... Nice work, reads very clearly. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:50, 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)

That's brilliant David, many thanks. Should have thought to do that anyway after you brought the Gazette up on the George Cross articles. Will add these citations (certainly the DSO) as and when I can get some time. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've tried seaching on various abbreviated versions of the name, but haven't managed to turn the rest of them up.  Of ourse, if any of your sources mention the names of those decorated, it should be possible to find them by that route.  David Underdown (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I know one of them was the B Sqn commander at El Alamein, Major M.StJ.V.Gibbs. I'll look up the other/s when I'm back home. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
He's the one that's already in the search results: "Lieutenant (temporary Captain) (acting Major) Martin St. John Valentine _Gibbs (73516)" (should be the 3rd result).  It will only be the DSOs (if any) which give detailed citations in the Gazette, Gibbs's doesn't, and the MCs and MMs will certainly just give the bare fact of the award.  Though full details of the recommendation may be available from http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=7655991&queryType=1&resultcount=1 (again this is for Gibbs).  However, it'll cost you £3.50 to see it (unless you happen to be at The National Archives).  David Underdown (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Doh, if you search in the same place on regiment, you should get all the names http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/search-results.asp?searchtype=browserefine&query=corpname%3droyal%20wiltshire%20yeomanry&catid=22&pagenumber=1&querytype=1&mediaarray=* and it does at least tell you what they were awarded - there seems to be an (American) Bronze Star in there as well.  David Underdown (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, fantastic, there they all are with dates of Gazetting and all! Do you think it's too much detail for a Wikipedia article, or should they all go in do you think? Could set them up as a table, perhaps. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well with the gazette dates if you just reference the individual Gazettes, then people can look at them if they want, whether or not it's worth putting all the names in I don't know. several of the MCs and MMs were on consecutive pages of a single Gazette, which would reduce the overhead slightly as we can just give the start and endpages (bear in mind with the dates that if they're in supllemetns, the date given on the gazette website is usually the date of the original Gazette, not the date the supplement was actually published, so you might need to allow for a few days either side).  The article is reasonably detailed already, but I must admit that here I added potted biographies of each of the members of an RAF squadron that I found were decorated in WWII.  David Underdown (talk) 18:48, 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)

I agree that this statement is doubtful: I would delete it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I do believe the regiment was formed then, but its a shame that the info was unsourced - I could have used it for my work on the yeomanry article. Oh well. Factotem (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)