Wikipedia:Peer review/British Army/archive1

If you are after Portal:British Army, then please go to Wikipedia:Peer review/British Army Portal/archive1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhfireboy (talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Army

It looks a pretty decent, well ordered article to me, but what needs to be done for it to reach GA or even FA? Thanks RHB 19:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more footnotes. Stubby paragraphs and list heavy sections need to be expanded (ex. 'Equipment'). - Tutmosis 01:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- So effectively creating a summary of the lists in prose in this article, with a link to the lists as the main? RHB 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the WP:LEAD. Compare with Imperial Japanese Navy and United States Marine Corps, two featured articles with obvious parallels. Kaisershatner 15:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article hasn't found itself yet. The history section is more of a history of British military objectives than a history of the army. The rest is mostly a series of lists on steriods. I don't feel the article gives an idea of what the British Army is opposed to other nations Armies or it's historical significance in British society.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Its not supposed to be a history of the army, thats History of the British Army there. As far as I can see (though I may need to brush aside my sense of patriotism for now :P) each main section has a link to the main article and a summary of that article, apart from recruitment and one or two other sections, which I dont think are large enough to qualify for their own articles. I will continue to try and improve this, Thanks for feedback. RHB 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - That is what I mean the "History of the Bristish Army" section just talks about what the military involvements of the empire/nation were not any topics specific to the British Army. Not about the when the size of the British Army grew and when it shrank. Not about when calvary was important percentage of the British Army, and when that was no longer so. Not about laws that had large affects on the British army. Not about the regimental traditions. This section should say something that would not be found in the "History of the British Military" article. It should be more about the what led to the British Army having the make-up and organization it does today. Not who it fought. This should be the history of things that if they had been different the British Army today would be different than it is. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Point taken, will try to get that section sorted either tomorrow or Wednesday night. Apart from a general lack of footnotes/refs, which I'll have to find out how to do, I'll try to follow a similar template to the USMC featured article. Any other suggestions appreciated. Thanks again RHB 22:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to comment that it seems lacking in significant discussion of the regimental system that is so distinctively different, for example, from the U. S. Army's approach. That would seem to be a core aspect of the British Army's history and structure. Another would be the historical tendency to select Army officers based on their social status rather than their capability. — RJH (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]