Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Temporary gentlemen/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2021 [1].

Temporary gentlemen

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For centuries the British army was officered by gentlemen, drawn from the upper classes. The requirements of the First World War led to a more than ten-fold expansion in the officer corps and, with insufficient men of the traditional officer class available, the positions were filled with those drawn from the middle and working classes. Such men were given temporary rank only and it came to be considered that they held the status of a gentleman only while they held the King's commission; they were expected to return to their former stations after the war which led to a number of social issues. The article also covers temporary gentlemen commissioned into the British Army during the Second World War and National Service, and those who held similar positions in the Portuguese conscript army of the 1960s and 1970s.

The article has recently passed a MILHIST A-class review and I am indebted to all the reviewers there for their improvements - Dumelow (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Pass per my A-class review. (t · c) buidhe 12:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • FN15 needs page number. Ditto FN81, check for others
Replaced FN15 and added an archive link for FN112 (for which I didn't have a page number). FN81 is this page on Google Books but I couldn't determine the page number. Is it OK to use the direct link to the page as the URL? - Dumelow (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not alone, because what users are able to see is variable - for example that link doesn't lead to any page for me. You could use a section name if there is one; if there is absolutely no indicator of a page number or other way of identifying location within the source, you could include a quote as a last resort. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added the chapter title (all citations are to the first page of that chapter). I've heard that books.google.co.uk links don't work for everyone. Should I convert them to books.google.com? - Dumelow (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
I'm not sure what you mean here? All the page numbers I could see were prefaced either p. or pp.? - Dumelow (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example in FN37 you have "191–2", but then in FN112 you have "197–198". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah understood, thanks. I've written it out in full. Think that was the only instance - Dumelow (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN68: given work title is the article title, given publisher is the work title. Why cite this to a book review? Ditto FN109
I've got rid of FN68. I don't have a copy of Allport to hand but will have by the end of this week and will convert FN109 into book footnotes - Dumelow (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN75 is missing author and date
Book review now replaced with references to the actual book - Dumelow (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am never quite sure how to approach Hansard references, hopefully I have corrected this? - Dumelow (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is now FN74 - ODNB. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for clarifying. I've converted it to a tempalte:citation format and included author, date etc. Hopefully I've not forgotten anything? - Dumelow (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hansard is a work title
Fixed, I think? - Dumelow (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN117: NATO is the publisher, Defesa Nacional is an organizational author
Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting should match between References and Bibliography
I've swapped all of the "template:cite web" etc. for "template:citation"; is that what you meant? - Dumelow (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partly, but now you've got inconsistencies between those and the source-specific templates like ODNB. The other piece is what information is included: for example in FN108 you've got an author affiliation, which doesn't appear in Bibliography entries. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. I think I've fixed the ODNB by switching it to template:citation. Are the Gazette references OK as they are or should I convert them also? FN108 should be fixed once I have the book and convert it into a standard biblio ref - Dumelow (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
When I was studying I was told not to use locations for obvious publishers (Cambridge University Press etc.) but I have no real objection either way. I've added them to all for consistency - Dumelow (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
Think I caught it (Lewis and Leeson were transposed) - Dumelow (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cite several theses - how do these meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
    • PhD theses are usually reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised..." (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony Gould is identified in the text as a historian - what is his background in history?
There's a profile at the Royal Literary Fund. He's largely a medical historian but served in the Ghurkhas which inspired him to write the history used here. I've no reason to doubt his military history credentials and Imperial Warriors is widely cited by other works - Dumelow (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Root is cited by Hodgkinson (2013) and Deeks (2017) who are used in this article and in related literature: Tracey (2018), Williams (2017), Paxman (2013), Hall & Stead (2020), Paul (2017) and Williams (2019) - Dumelow (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What has this been cited in that is not a student work? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, I see a DPhil thesis at a major research university to be closer to a journal article or academic work than student work --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two books, plus a journal article, plus a handful of DPhil theses is more than the average peer reviewed paper gets citied in. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

Sorry I missed the ACR. I saw this there but didn't get time to do a full review while it was open.

  • Some of the image captions could benefit from more detail or be worded to be more relevant to the text the images support.
I'm wary of making them too long but I've had a go at providing some context and would welcome any feedback - Dumelow (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prices in the background section are interesting but something to compare it to would be nice. I'm wary of the inflation template but it gives some idea, or perhaps a soldier's pay? Just something that gives a little context.
Agreed. I've converted all values into modern equivalents in footnotes and added some background on pay levels in the different classes and the pay of private soldiers (the basic rate of which remained the same between the 18th century and 1915, though efficiency and re-enlistment supplements were introduced in the later period) - Dumelow (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weren't/aren't OTCs a university thing rather than a school one?
Prior to 1948 the cadet corps in schools, what we now know as the Combined Cadet Force, was the junior division of the Officers' Training Corps (which is now solely university age). It's covered a little at Officers' Training Corps#General history of the units, though I've often thought we need an article covering the history of cadet forces in the UK as it is quite complex - Dumelow (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always thought "enlisted" was an American term. Do sources commonly use it to refer to private soldiers and NCOs in the British Army?
Good point. I've switched to the Commonwealth term other ranks and linked at first use - Dumelow (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • had to be "forced to take commissions to their financial detriment" Who are you quoting here?
It was an unnamed Ministry of Labour official but I don't think it adds much. I've paraphrased it - Dumelow (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However Macmillan came from a family of good social standing I'm sure you'll have seen "however" seized upon at FAC in the past. It is over-used on Wikipedia and I'm not sure this adds anything. Check for others.
I'm a bit out of touch with recent FACs but I agree, particularly where I'd used however at the start of sentences. I've been through and addressed this - Dumelow (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary gentlemen were demobilised relatively quickly at the war's end Relative to what?
No idea. Removed, they were demobilised quickly - Dumelow (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this was rare happening only on 1,109 occasions Missing some punctuation there I think. Also, out of how many? A percentage might be helpful here.
Reworded. Percentages would be problematic as there is uncertainty on the number of temporary commissions granted (I've added a footnote on this), but I've added a comparison to the number commissioned by the traditional military college route during the war - Dumelow (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hugh Pollard wrote in February 1919 Tell the reader who Pollard is and what his expertise is in the matter
Done - Dumelow (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many temporary officers found their financial situation worsened by demobilisation Is it worth mentioning the wider context of tense industrial relations and economic recession that followed the war?
Yes, good call. The sources are clear that the civilian wages were lower than the army's even in 1919, but I've added a bit later on about the effects of the 1920-21 recession - Dumelow (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • were often barred from making use of the labour exchanges Why?
Hopefully clarified - Dumelow (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • former public school boys and the sons of serving officers; with only 5% of the intake from the other ranks that seems an odd place for a semicolon, also MOS:% would have that written as "per cent" or "percent", not "%".
Removed semi colon and spelt out % - Dumelow (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frederick Hubert Vinden reformed the system What was his position?
Added, his boss was involved also - Dumelow (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are all quite minor and I'm sure I'll support in due course. Thank you for an interesting read. I find these sorts of unintended social consequences of war fascinating! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Harry, some really good points and the article is much improved for them. I think I've addressed everything above now, but would welcome a review of my changes - Dumelow (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look through your changes and they are indeed improvements. Glad to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]

Add alt text to the images per WP:CAPTION; MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Heartfox. I've had a go but I am never quite sure what is pertinent to add and would welcome any advice - Dumelow (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Heartfox (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This nomination has been open for four weeks and has attracted only the one support. Unless there is a little more interest over the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie

[edit]
Thanks for the support Eddie891. Good point on the %, per wp:percent it seems these should all be written out (though personally I prefer the symbol), I've changed all instances to "per cent" - Dumelow (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: I've been impersonating an officer for most of my military career (having been commissioned from the ranks), so I guess I felt the need to take a look at this one. Overall this looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing AustralianRupert, I've taken the actions below - Dumelow (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article is well referenced and well written in my opinion (no action required)
  • the following terms are overlinked according to the dup link checker: Territorial Force, Household Brigade, Royal Irish Constabulary, Edwardian era, Richard Adlington,
I've delinked the duplicates - Dumelow (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only a small number of non-gentlemen were granted commissions" --> not sure about this, what's a "non gentleman"?
Good point. I meant men from outside the traditional officer class, hopefully I've clarified this in the article - Dumelow (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "together with a few territorial force officer" --> "Territorial Force" as a proper noun?
Yep, done - Dumelow (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commanded brigades" --> suggest linking brigade
Done - Dumelow (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each division was required" --> as above
Done - Dumelow (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISSN for the Root work?
Doesn't seem to be - Dumelow (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there an ISBN or OCLC for the works by the two Turners?
Added - Dumelow (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Further reading section is in a different sized font to the rest of the references; this seems inconsistent
Fixed, I think - Dumelow (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "positions; despite objections from the boards" --> not sure about the semi colon here. Suggest just using comma despite objections from the boards
Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many temporary officers, even those with no secondary education, expected to retain their position as gentlemen after the war": purely non actionable in this review, however, interestingly enough - or not depending upon one's perspective -- this situation is enduring, even in modern Australia. After commissioning, I found that my daughter's school fees were raised simply because I was now a "commissioned officer" rather than an NCO
  • "File:David Nelson VC.jpg": not sure about the date on the image description page -- seems unlikely that the image was created in 2012; suggest c. 1914-1918 or something similar
He's wearing captains insignia. He was still a lieutenant in 1916 and promoted major in March 1918 so I've put 1916-18 - Dumelow (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Men of the 20th Officer Cadet Battalion, 1917.jpg": same as above, the date on the image description page doesn't seem correct. Suggest "December 1917"
Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, suggest linking Portuguese Army for consistency with British Army
Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "joined the army in Autumn 1914": probably best to avoid per MOS:SEASON -- do we know the months?
November, changed - Dumelow (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (non actionable and more of an aside) -- suspect that there is an aspect of this that remains; even within the Australian Army there remains a gap between those commissioned from the ranks and those directly recruited as officers, even though all go through exactly the same training. It isn't a particularly large gap to bridge, but the term "ORTs" (other rank tendencies), to be added pejoratively to a performance appraisal on a whim, remains the weapon of the CO who doesn't like how close the new subbie is to his subordinates.
  • the article seems quite heavily focused on the army; but were there not temporary gentlemen in the Navy and RAF?
Good point, there were temporary officers in the RN and RAF also. There seems to be less written about them, probably because numbers were much fewer, but I've added a couple of paragraphs (which I've split out, with the existing British Indian Army paragraph, into an "Other branches" section - Dumelow (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "psychic reassurance of a khaki tunic on their back and a Webley .455 at their hip" -- again not actionable, but there was a time when a light hip caused me distress, too. Most returning soldiers will experience this at some time, usually for a short period after returning home...
  • "and in 2019 49 per cent": is there a way to avoid two sets of numbers appearing after each other?
Done - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the bit about batmen is interesting, I once got marked down on a PAR for insisting on cleaning my own weapon rather than having a soldier do it for me after an activity...apparently I lacked "teamwork". Anyway, I seem to recall an anecdote about one of the first Allied officers killed during D-day (Brotheridge, I think) cleaning his own boots while his batman lay on his bed. I don't have my copy of Pegasus Bridge at the moment as I am away from home, but will see if my wife can dig it out and send it to me to pass on. Might be useful, or it might not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I remember reading that (my copy of Pegasus Bridge is at my parents house, I think). Our article says he was a temporary gentleman commissioned from the ranks. The Ox and Bucks were quite a 'smart' regiment so I'm not surprised to read that he "did not initially enjoy an easy relationship with his fellow platoon leaders who all came from a different social background to himself", though its uncited - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, J sent me the following excerpts from my 2003 Pocket Books edition (ISBN 0-7434-5068-X); my email got through to her just after she got the kids down, so she had some free time. Up to you if you wish to use this or not : AustralianRupert (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
p. 27: mentions Brotheridge was the oldest platoon commander in D Coy at 26; he had been a corporal before and attended OCTU on Howard's recommendations; his fellow platoon commanders were initially unsure of him as he "wasn't one of them"; he didn't play their games (rugby or cricket) but they warmed to him because of his athleticism
p. 35: mentions that Brotheridge had no sense of being ill at ease amongst the soldiers because of his background; he played the same sport as them (soccer/football); would chat to his batman Billy Gray in his barracks. Brotheridge would polish his own boots while his batman would chat about sport. Wally Parr recounts the strange sight of a British LT polishing his own boots while his batman is "gassing on about Manchester United and West Ham"
pp. 101 & 109: Brotheridge is mortally wounded during the assault, after throwing a grenade at a German machine gun post; dies of his wounds
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Temporary_gentlemen/archive1&oldid=1014663041"