The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Defence Regiment[edit]

Nominator(s): SonofSetanta (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have reviewed it extensively over the last two weeks and made many improvements. The article is free from error, properly referenced and complies with WP:NPOV. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, welcome to Milhist A-class review. The first point I want to make is thank you for your hard work so far. I hope that you will find the following comments helpful. That said, unfortunately I don't believe that this article meets the A-class criteria in its current state. Nevertheless, if you wish to achieve this, I would like to help you, so I will provide a few observations/suggestions:

I note is that the article doesn't appear to have been through a peer review or a Good Article review prior to its arrival here at A-class. While this is not mandatory, it is usually advisable as A-class criteria are quite strict and Milhist ACR aims to be just below Featured article standard. Thus, going through a GA review prior to A-class usually makes the ACR a bit easier.
in regards to length, I think the article may be a bit too detailed and I don't think stays focused enough for an encyclopedia article. For instance, please consider if it really necessary to discuss things like duty hours, personal accomodation, information cards, rates of pay, the number of Elizabeth Crosses not awarded, etc. or if it is, whether the weight that is placed upon these topics is suitable (most certainly they would if you were writing a book, but perhaps not here. That said, before cutting information, please ask others for an opinion on this, as I am only one editor and others may have a better knowledge of how to handle this topic than me);
be careful of over capitalisation. For instance, per WP:MILTERMS ranks should not be capitalised unless being used as a title, e.g. "appointed Lieutenant Colonel" should be "appointed lieutenant colonel";
there appear to be a number of single sentence, or very short paragraphs. Where possible, I suggest merging these to make larger paragraphs;
be careful of overlinking terms. As a general rule, a term should be linked once in the lead, once in the infobox and once in the body of the article (although sometimes it is acceptable to link less common terms a second time in the body if it is felt it will help reader understanding). Currently there are quite a few overlinked terms. If you install this script, you will be able to highlight them;
"sectarian outrages or robberies" (I'm not sure about the use of the word "outrages" here. A more descriptive term might be better);
"Non-commissioned officers (nco's)" --> "non-commissioned officers (NCOs)" (abbreviations should be capitalised here and the apostrophe is incorrect);
this reads quite awkwardly: "A study in 1988 showed that half the women serving were married and 42% were mothers, two thirds of which were infants or of school age." Perhaps this might be better, "A study in 1988 showed that half the women serving were married and 42% were mothers; the children of two thirds of the mothers were infants or of school age."
is there a citation for this: "Two UDR soldiers were killed by the regular army, three by loyalist paramilitaries, and the remaining 192 by republican paramilitaries (mainly the Provisional IRA). Four Greenfinches were killed during the Troubles, Private Eva Martin, L/Cpl Jean Leggett, Cpl Heather Kerrigan and Pte Margaret A. Hearst."
is there a citation for this: "Three-ton and four-ton Bedford trucks were used for large troop movements. A range of unmarked civilian cars and vans was used for staff, administration and covert activities."
is there a citation for this: "Each battalion was able to communicate with other battalions using C42's and B47's installed in the battalion or company Operations room (Ops Room) or Communications Centre (Comcen) as well as the BID 150system of cryptic coding and scrambler telephone system."
is there a citation for this: "referring to the redundancy payments received by former UDR soldiers still serving with the Royal Irish Regiment at the end of Operation Banner (The official army title for operations in Northern Ireland)."
is there a citation for this: "Each battalion had a number of pipers who also participated in a centralised pipe band formally called the Pipes & Drums of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Its uniform followed the traditional military dress for Irish pipers, consisting of a saffron kilt, bottle-green "Prince Charlie" jacket, bottle-green cape and bottle-green caubeen adorned with a double-size cap badge. Unlike other Irish regiments in the British Army, UDR pipers did not wear a hackle and he lining colour of the cloaks was unique to the regiment."
including constructions like this "See: Miami Showband killings" in the middle of a paragraph seems a bit ineligant. It would be better to work the link into a sentence within the body of the text;
is there a citation for the paragraph beginning: "The plan was approved by early summer 1991 and proposed:"
is there a citation for this: "The City of Belfast and a number of boroughs throughout Northern Ireland paid their own tribute to the regiment by granting freedoms including: North Down, Larne, and Newtownards."
is there a citation for this: "The UDR Memorial is in addition to the UDR Roll of Honour situated beside Lisburn War Memorial, Castle Street, Lisburn that commemorates UDR personnel from the Lisburn area who died in the conflict."
this is not a sentence: "Referred to colloquially as barrack-busters.";
this is not a sentence: "Killed in action on 9 August 1971 at a vehicle checkpoint (as part of the internment call-out) close to the Clady Bridge border crossing.";
this is not a sentence: "Killed by a former member of his own company "possessed of strong Republican views" who moved across the border after the killing and is not known to have returned to Northern Ireland."
this is editorialising: "Unsurprisingly this fact is..."
I'm not sure this is correct: "for arresting the shootists" ("shootists" should probably be "shooters");
be careful about consistency of date format. For instance, compare "2013-07-17" with "21 January 1970";
try to make your citations as consistent as possible. For instance compare "Potter p311" with "Potter 2001, p. 94" and "Chris Ryder, The UDR-An Instrument of Peace? ISBN..." (they all use different styles)
please avoid using all caps for titles in your notes/citations. Title case is easier on the eye. For instance "ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT (Hansard, 3 February 1972)" probably should be "Ulster Defence Regiment (Hansard, 3 February 1972);
there are several "page needed" tags which need to be fixed;
the Bibliography would probably be better if it were to use authors first rather than the titles, particularly as your short notes/citations use author names. In this regard, you might consider using a template to format your references, such as the ((cite book)) or ((cite web)) etc. as it will help ensure consistency;
In terms of progression from here, I recommend the following: make an attempt to address the comments I have made as best you can, then wait for this review to run its course (it will probably take another four to six weeks, unless you ask for it to be closed earlier). After that, I would recommend listing the article for a peer review at WP:PR and a copy edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. After both of those are complete, I suggest asking for a Good Article review by listing the article at WP:GAN. Once all of those processes are complete, you can consider whether you want to bring it back here (if it doesn't pass this time), or go to Featured Article Candidates. If you have any questions about my comments, please feel free to ask. Cheers and good luck with taking this article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.