Talk:Imperial Yeomanry

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm in the process of doing that now...makes it kind of hard when the main source is blacklisted though. Hopefully it will get whitelisted (I've already requested it) soon.-  FireForEffect - 04:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article nomination

message: 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)
replies: text: The site states that All content of this site is ©Shrewsbury Museums Service, but it gives a contact email. You could try mailing them and asking for permission to use their pictures on WP - there are various template forms and letters here. I'd also suggest reading WP:COPY first. EyeSereneTALK 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: 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 EyeSereneTALK 17:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: 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  to the end (this produces a tick as follows: ).
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!):
*"...the regiment was based on members of standing Yeomanry regiments" It sounds more encyclopedic to say something like "...the regiment was raised by recruiting from existing Yeomanry regiments".
*"Upon arrival, the regiment was sent throughout the zone of operations." This is unclear as to whether the regiment was broken up and dispersed across the zone of operations (presumably the Orange Free State and the Transvaal?), or served as a regiment in different locations at different dates.
*"...substandard horsemanship/marksmanship" Avoid the '/' where possible - it's better to write the sentence in full eg "...either substandard horsemanship or marksmanship, or both".
*"... it didn’t describe the urgency of the situation" Avoid contractions unless quoting direct speech; instead of "didn't", use "did not".
*"This plummeted the morale" This is grammatically incorrect - maybe instead "As a result, morale plummeted"?
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:
*Whilst the lead section is a fair summary of the article, it could be expanded slightly. According to WP:LEAD, it should be able to stand alone as a mini-article in its own right - I think a little more detail on the regiment's activities during the Boer War would help here (as well as explain to the reader why the regiment is notable).
*Section headings need to be tightened up. For example, rather than "Operations in the Second Boer War" use "Second Boer War", and remove "The" from the two subheadings and de-capitalise "contingent" (as per WP:HEAD).
*Check that wikilinks go where they are intended - for example, the linked phrase Royal Warrant goes to an article about suppliers of goods to the Royal Family, which is a different usage of the phrase to that in the article.
*Two of the references given in the References section appear to be substantially the same. Are they both required? Also, see  for a template that's useful for book references - an ISBN would help interested readers to track down the sources easier.
*A See also section would be a good addition - links to Wikipedia articles on the Boer War and Yeomanry regiments would enhance the depth of the article.
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 first is from a battle (Faber's Put) that is not mentioned in the text.
*The second (according to the Fair Use rationale given) partially illustrates the toll from disease - again, a subject not mentioned.
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 ;) EyeSereneTALK 17:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review on hold until Tuesday 24th July

message: 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 EyeSereneTALK 11:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Fail

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disbanded in 1908?