Talk:Cavalry Staff Corps

Cavalry Staff Corps has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 6, 2021. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Cavalry Staff Corps appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 February 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Cavalry Staff Corps is regarded as Britain's first standing military police force?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cavalry Staff Corps.

Wikipedia

Military history: British / European / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cavalry Staff Corps/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 10:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will review, comments to follow over next few days. Zawed (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

...desertion in Wellington's armies. Suggest reciting Duke of Wellington and linking that.

Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

...than the rest of the army. suggest "than the rest of the British Army."

Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest rephrasing the second sentence to better separate Earl Bathurst from Duke of York. I initially parsed this as the Duke of York being a title of Earl Bathurst before realising they were two different people.

Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formation and service in the Peninsula

Link troop

Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any info on the service performed by the British and Irish troops of the unit?

Alas, nothing in particular. I suspect they were engaged in general maintenance of discipline and as orderlies but couldn't find much specific about these troops. I did find a little more on the Spanish part of the unit, which I have added - Dumelow (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform

suggest linking bearskin hat and light cavalry shako. These are relatively unusual items of clothing and plastron has been linkd, presumably for this reason.

Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo campaign

Three men were taken from each cavalry regiment under Wellington's command, British or otherwise,... To me, the "otherwise" is quite strange usage. I think it would be better for context to refer to the Allies here e.g. "Three men were taken from each cavalry regiment, including those of Britain's allies, that were under Wellington's command" or something to that effect.

Good point, done - Dumelow (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nb may work better integrated into the text; I think you are trying to say that by the time they arrived, the campaign was over?

Done. Yes, but I don't know when the officers arrived only that their commissions weren't granted in time. It's not implausible that they arrived before the paperwork was finalised - Dumelow (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

May pay to link hussar braid

I've liked hussar, ithe article has no specific section on the distinctive bradiing but does discuss it throughout - Dumelow (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing this Zawed. I've made some changes to the article and comments above - Dumelow (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I made a couple of minor tweaks to your additions, hope that is OK. I believe that this article now meets the GA criteria so am passing it as such. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]