Wikipedia:Peer review/Frontier Force Regiment/archive1

Frontier Force Regiment

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. I have been working on this article for long. Previously had requested User:EyeSerene for copy editing/improving, that couldn't be completed, back in 2008. Requesting review to further improve the article. Thanks, --SMS ^Talk 00:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Suggestions:

I had a go at copy editing some of it, but I think it would be best to have someone from the Guild of Copy Editors have a go before going to GAN;
there is a large amount of whitespace between the lead and the body of the article. This could be reduced by using a table of contents limiter, e.g. {{TOC limit}}, which could be set to display only second level headings in the TOC by placing a "|2" in the template call;
per the Featured article tools ([1]), many of the urls in the article are now deadlinks - if possible you should provide a link to an archived version. I have found this site useful: [2];
before moving on to GA, the "citation needed" tags will need to be dealt with (for instance there is one in both the Composition and Siachen Conflict sections);
in the Battle honours section, you have listed in the individual awards, but I wonder if you should include the actual "battle honours" that the regiment has received. Within the militaries of the Commonwealth "battle honours" have a specific definition which goes beyond individual decorations. For instance see this link: battle honour. Does the regiment hold any of these such battle honours?
the date format should be consistent. Mostly you appear to use "month day, year" (e.g. "July 4, 1999"), but I found at least one instance of "day month year" (e.g. "23 October 1924");
citations are probably needed for the Hilal-e-Jurat, Sitara-e-Jurat, Legion d'Honneur, Legion of Merit, and MBE recipients sections;
the Footnotes section currently uses a mixture of citation styles. These should be made consistent if you are looking to take this article towards higher levels of assessment (particularly Milhist A class and FA);
where possible, in the References and Further reading section, full bibliographic details should be added, including places of publication, and ISBNs or OCLC numbers. These can usually be found via worldcat.org;
the Further reading section should probably be listed by authors surname. Additionally, it is uncommon to display ranks of authors like this in modern civilian publications;
you might consider using the {{cite book}} to make the format in the References and Further reading sections consistent;
I recommend removing the "In media" section, as it doesn't seem to serve much purpose, IMO;
The licences used for the images in the article will probably need to be reviewed. For example, "File:Indian pows 1965 war.jpg" has conflicting licencing information. "File:Jinnah with Piffers.JPG" needs to be confirmed to have been PD in Pakistan prior to 1 January 1996, otherwise it falls afoul of the URAA/US copyright issue. "File:FFReg Pakistan Somalia.jpg" probably needs more information about why it isn't replaceable with non-free media to be considered a valid use of non-free media. There are probably images of Pakistani troops in Somalia that were taken by US personnel. If so, you should replace the non free image with one of those, because photos taken by US service personnel are undeniably in the public domain;
Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far and good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

the bold should be removed from internally in the article (italics are used for emphasis), unless there's something I'm missing.
you're missing some references for the battle honours, such as the legion d'honneur
I can't help but think maybe the "Battle honours" section is a little overwhelming. Obviously the content is good, it's just the excessive number of headings. Not quite sure on the solution though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm just noting that the article isn't "stable" (as the word is used at GAN and FAC), so I think it's probably premature to copyedit this one. See the edit history, and User_talk:The_ed17#Clarification regarding RSN closure and the discussion at RSN.[3] - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AustralianRupert and Grandiose for taking out time to review this article, I will start working on your suggestions in a day or two. About Dank's concern, I will like to mention here that the editor who removed a number of sources from the article saying that they are from "www.pakdef.info" is probably not checking the sources before removal, there is not a single source in the article from this site (which was declared a non-reliable source at RSN). One of the source is actually a book "Sons of John Company: the Indian and Pakistan Armies 1903-91" by "John Gaylor", published by "Spellmount". Now the issue is that as the GBooks only show a snippet view of this book so a full view of the book available at "www.pakdef.info" was added in the url field of Cite book template. --SMS ^Talk 09:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First SMS needs to stop accusing others of Bad faith immediately, I am not going to tolerate it indefinitely. What makes you think I have not looked at the source ? The article contents simply cannot be relied upon any content (mirror or essay or details) from pakdef.info even if pakdef.info says its from other sources, simply because pakdef.info has a history of tweaking facts and producing essays that are often factually wrong. There was a reason pakdef.info was declared WP:SPS at RSN[4] and some people here not only fail to WP:HEAR but also don't mind indulging in blatant WP:AOBFs against community consensus.--DBig Xray 10:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]