Talk:The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal

A fact from The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 December 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that before the Second World War, Australian army officers used the pages of Britain's Army Quarterly and Defence Journal to argue for greater self-reliance in defence matters?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal.

Wikipedia

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Military history: Historiography / British / European C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Cuthbert Headlam, co-founder and editor of The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal, felt that the fighting of the First World War was futile?
- ALT1: ... that The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal was established during the era of trench warfare but ended during the nuclear age?
- ALT2: ... that before the Second World War, Australian army officers used the pages of Britain's Army Quarterly and Defence Journal to argue for greater self-reliance in defence matters?

Reviewed: 1993 reviews of the British honours system

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems: - see comments

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A worthwhile and well structured article that I'm surprised had not been created before. The article is new enough, long enough and well sourced. Turning to the hooks, the first is fine and fully sourced in the text; ALT2 is also good and cited in the text and AGF; however ALT1, whilst good, is not actually mentioned in the text and I'm sure it has to be to qualify. It's a bit deductive and I'm also not sure that 1929 was still the age of trench warfare. As I've mentioned before, I'm pretty sure we're meant to include the sourcing within the nom itself, but am happy to be corrected on that. So subject to that being clarified, I'm happy to support the main hook and ALT2. Bermicourt (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was founded in 1920 but I think we can drop Alt1 anyway. Thanks for confirming that the other two are cited in the text. I have removed The to make Alt2 flow better. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is now GTG. Bermicourt (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting ALT2 to Prep 2 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]