Talk:Liverpool Irish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Liverpool Irish appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 October 2006.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

Liverpool Irish was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 18 November 2006

[edit] Some notes and questions (Good Article Nomination)

I saw this on the Good Article Candidates page and had a looksie. I'm not an expert at all on British military history, but have the following questions/comments:

• The article notes that the Liverpool Irish saw substantial losses in the Western Front, with over 2,000 dead, wounded, and missing. But how many troops were in the entire unit? If they had a few thousand, then 2,000 men down would be a substantial loss - but if they had >>10,000, it couldn't really be called substantial.
• Likewise, when it is noted that depletion by losses and transfer caused the Liverpool Irish to be disbanded, it would be interesting to note how many % of troops were left at the time of disbanding.
• Has the troop had no role in any British post-WWII military conflicts?
• It would be great to see a Liverpool Irish patch, sleave insignia, or coat of arms. And also maybe a picture of what a caubeen headress looks like.
• The article seems well written. The article appears factually accurate - it has lots of references, and it appears that most of the references are of some quality. The article seems focused, but I can't say whether this article is sufficiently broad in its coverage. It seems neutral and factual. It appears to be stable. If I knew enough about the subject to evaluate the article's breadth of coverage, I wold probably give the article Good Article status.

-- Patiwat 02:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Some comments in addition to the above by Patiwat, which I agree with.

• The second and third paragraphs of the lead does not really act as a summary of the article, rather they act as the start of the history section. See WP:LEAD for more details.
• When the West Lancashire Division was reformed in January 1916 could do with some more explanation. We are told that The 1/8th transferred to the North Lancashire Brigade in February 1915, but are given no indication that the West Lancashire Brigade ever disbanded.
• The modern role of the unit is mentioned in the lead, but not in the main text. These details should be restated at the end of the article, rather than having it end abruptly at 1967.
• Other than the matters already stated there appear to be no further barriers to GA status; the article is well-written, well referenced using a number of sources, seems sufficiently broad in coverage to a non-expert, is stable and contains appropriate images. Oldelpaso 14:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

The October 14, 2006 nomination for good article has failed because the above comments by reviewers of this nomination have not been addressed. Please feel free to polish up the article and resubmit it in the future. Neil916 (Talk) 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)