Prose might need to be improved here: "Upon establishment, the regiment had an authorised strength of 25 officers and 497 other ranks, who were organised into a regimental headquarters, three squadrons, each of which consisted of six troops." For instance consider instead: "Upon establishment, the regiment had an authorised strength of 25 officers and 497 other ranks, who were organised into a regimental headquarters and three squadrons, each of which consisted of six troops."
Wording here: "...but were involved in fighting off a number of sharp engagements." Could this perhaps be written better as: "...but were involved in fighting off a number of sharp attacks."
"Following this, the 12th were sent back to the rear to rest, arriving at the railhead at El Ferdan...", railhead should be wikilinked earlier in the text (at first appearance).
There seems to be an inconsistency in the presentation of "Machine-Gun Section", in some places you use "machine-gun section". Pls review and amend if required.
Interesting point and one I had to think about. In this case, my take is that grammatically it is correct to use lower case where I have because of the construction "its machine-gun section" is an improper noun group as opposed to "the Machine-Gun Section" which is a proper noun group. Happy to adjust if you think its an issue, though.
AustralianRupert (
talk)
07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Is this a typo: "...result most of warm weather equipment had been left behind..."? Specifically "most of warm weather". Also should this be really read "cold weather equipment"?
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
No issues here.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
All recent edits look constructive.
It contains
images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have
fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
Images used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
This is an excellent regimental history in my opinion, only a couple of fairly minor issues with prose listed above to be dealt with before the review is past. Happy to reconsider any points you disagree with. Cheers.
Anotherclown (
talk)
05:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)reply