Talk:Haldane Reforms/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

A very readable article, which appears to have most, if not all, the necessary attributes of a GA. I have noticed that it is based on only two references; more would be better, but it will not be "failed" on that point as the article appears to be compliant with WP:verify.

I would like to pose one question, which is related to the Scope. The article appears (this is not my "specialist" subject) to adequately explain what the Haldane Reforms were and why they were necessary, i.e. to fix "defects" in the system and they were a continuation of the Cardwell Reforms, Childers Reforms, and the Esher Report. What the article does not discuss is were they successful and long lasting, or did some more reforms need to follow in their wake?

I suspect that, whatever the answer, I might be tempted to say that the article (and the lead) should cover that question; but that is pre-judging an answer that I've not yet heard. Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question, and I'm not entirely clear what the answer is. I think we can split it up:

What was the "next reform" in this line? We had Cardwell, Childers, Haldane, then ---?
Did the Haldane reforms work? What was their long-term effect?

In the first case, the answer is really unclear. The next "named reform" I can think of was actually the 1957 Defence White Paper - there had been major reforms since then, but they seem to be treated as part of the preparations for an imminent war, or the restructuring after one, etc etc, and you don't see them talked about as discrete named lumps.

In the second case, well, there was a war! It seems to be generally accepted that without Haldane's reforms, the Army would have fallen apart in France in 1914; indeed, it might never have got there. So I think we can say they were successful, though there were massive reforms in 1914-18 (as you'd expect) and then in 1922(?).

Putting those together, yes, I think there is definite potential for some kind of followthrough here. Perhaps the best way to do it would be to:

a) have a section on the immediate impact - how the reforms affected the Army in WWI.

b) the long-term impact of the various strands - some of his fundamental changes, like the unified Territorial Force, still exist in some form.

I'll have a think tomorrow about how best to structure this, but you're right that the article could definitely benefit from it. Shall we put it on hold for a little bit while I try to knock something together? Shimgray | talk | 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll put it on hold.

Looking at your comments above and rereading the article, the reforms covered the period the 1906 to 1912; and two years later we had WW I, so possible negative answer(s) might be "not proven", insufficient time to bed down before WW I, etc, on the otherhand WW I might have been a temporary interruption and the reforms continued and were then interrupted by WW II, etc. I think it is perfectly reasonable to raise these questions in the article, and if the answers are unclear or uncertain due to the two World Wars, Aden (and everything else) just make those points. At this point, to close off the WP:GAN, I'm not looking for a big extension, just a paragraph or so in the main body and a sentence or so in the Lede. In many cases, Good Articles can still be improved after GA status. I also think a Reforms navigation box would be useful. This is the WP:MILHIST {Campaign} Navibox that I've "pinched" for a quick mock up.

Pyrotec (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a 'WW I' section. There's not much in it, but it provides a place to discuss the effectiveness of the reforms; and I've copied some of your text into it from the lede and slightly expanded it. I'm now going to close off this review.Pyrotec (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A wide-ranging, readable article on these early-20th century reforms of the British Army.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA status; however, I still think that a suitable navigation box to link the various British Army refroms would be helpful to readers.Pyrotec (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK but go slow--add a few sentences at a time to see how editors react. Rjensen (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]