Talk:British cavalry during the First World War/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 09:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi, regarding coverage; while the UK, Indian and Canadian cavalry are mentioned, the Australian and New Zealanders are missing. The Australian Mounted Division became fully cavalry in 1918. Probably needs a definition of what is cavalry, with reference to the arming of the Anzac Mounted Division and lancer regiments. --Rskp (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the British cavalry the Canadians and Indians are mentioned as they served in the British Cavalry Corps.

The article needs to make this clear. Apart from a link, the British Cavalry Corps is mentioned only once, way down in the Divisions and brigades subsection. The narrow focus of this article must be clearly stated or the article name changed to British Cavalry Corps in World War I. --Rskp (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No the article is called British cavalry during the First World War how much clearer can it be. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as being a problem - the only times non 'British' cavalry units are mentioned its in the context of their working with British units, and there's no significant coverage of these formations. Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the article does not include relevant information about British cavalry in the First World War. The contributions by British cavalry in the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions and Australian cavalry in the Australian Mounted Division which fought alongside each other in the Egyptian Expeditionary Force during the Megiddo campaign should be included in this article, unless the article is just about the British Cavalry Corps, in which case the article name should be changed to reflect this specific focus. --Rskp (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were no British cavalry in the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions, in Palestine, only Yeomanry and Indian cavalry. See British yeomanry during the First World War.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of 'British cavalry' you employ to make the judgements that the Yeomanry and Indian cavalry were not 'British cavalry' units? --Rskp (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem Without a definition, Jim Sweeney has edited the Battle of Haifa article cutting references to Yeomanry being cavalry, yet they rode horses and carried swords!! --Rskp (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to continue this discussion on the relevant article talk page(s) rather than this forum. If you think that I erred in assessing this article as GA class (and I really don't think that I did) you can seek a reassessment. Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article its explained, are you really asking why Indian cavalry regiments are not British?Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in excellent shape. Here are my comments:

The inclusing of the article's title in the first sentence is rather forced. I can't think of a way to work this title (which is fine) into a sentence, and I'd suggest that you tweak this into something which reads better.

Changes made

"In the first year of the war in France eight—later nine—cavalry brigades were formed for three British cavalry divisions." - this is a bit confusing: were eight or nine brigades formed in the first year of the war?

Nine - text changed

The 'colonial mounted contingent' link seems a bit misleading given that the destination article is on a much broader topic

Changed to colonial mounted contingent, is that better leaving the link on colonial?

That works for me Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"under four point five per cent," - "under 4.5 per cent" is easier to comprehend

Changed to 4.5

Am I correct in reading the 'The cavalry regiment' section to mean that the structure of these units remained unchanged throughout the war? (nothing but the 1914 structure is described) Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only change in structure that I have ever read about was the withdrawal of the machine gun sections in 1916, replaced by the issue of the Hotchkiss one per troop made that clearer in the text.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK (and that makes sense given that temporary ad-hoc organisations seem to have been used when the cavalry were deployed as infantry). Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Excellent work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick appreciate the review. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09: 31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)