Wikipedia:Peer review/Gloucestershire Regiment/archive1

Gloucestershire Regiment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Article has been extensively expanded, and there's one or two things that still need tweaking, but I'm interested to hear opinions on how it looks now. I intended to submit a Copy-Edit request in due course, so no need for tooth-combs in terms of grammar and WP:MOS unless that's your thing. I am interested to hear about any clunky sentences or confusing prose, anything I've missed, not covered enough or covered too much, and any ideas for improving the article further.

Thanks, FactotEm (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Daniell, or Daniel, or two different sources? Spelling varies. Littlewood cited 29 times but not listed in references. I am picky about citation format and have a preferred style, but others do not agree with me. Having noted that, I find the style a bit messy. Perhaps just let it ride and see if others say the same. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you taking the time to look at this, and thanks for catching the sourcing errors. Not sure why I started missing off the 2nd L, but it's fixed now. I think Littlewood got inadvertently removed, but he's back now. I'm curious as to why the citation style is messy. As far as I am aware though, the current style is MOS compliant, and it's the one I'm used to, so not really keen to change it. FactotEm (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are periods/full stops after the p/pp sometimes but often they disappear. There are Notes in the Footnotes and Footnotes in the Notes. Various other small details. I remebr once many years ago someone actually paid attention to the cite formats in FAC, but I am not sure anyone still bothers. Just let it ride. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I had forgotten the inconsistency with periods after p/pp. Fixed now. FactotEm (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time, unless you enjoyed it. Anyhow, good luck at FAC. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Insignificant details like that bug me waaaaay more than they should. It's the OCD in me. :) FactotEm (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]