Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Territorial Force

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Territorial Force

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

Featured article candidates/Territorial Force/archive1

The Territorial Force was a British part-time auxiliary, formed in 1908 by the consolidation of the existing Volunteer Force and Yeomanry auxiliaries. It was ridiculed in peacetime, and Kitchener ignored it in favour of his New Army as a means of reinforcing the regular army, the role the Territorial Force was largely designed to perform, on the outbreak of the First World War. Despite this indignity, the territorials volunteered for service overseas, filled the gap between the effective destruction of the regular army in France in 1914 and the arrival of the New Army in 1915, and carried the majority of the British effort in the Middle Eastern theatre. The article has been peer reviewed, and assuming it passes this ACR, I hope to submit it for FAC. Looking forward to feedback. Factotem (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

Mileham in notes but not refs. Two instances of Beckett p. 232, but which Beckett? And I assume Besher p. 30 is a typo for Bewsher p. 30. Otherwise nice work. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Careless mistakes by me all fixed now. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Central_London_Rangers,_1896.jpg: what's the basis for the CC claim?

The CC claim refers to the scan by HantsAV. That was the only license applied when I found the image, and realising that that was not valid for the original, I added {{PD-anon-1923}}, based on source and publication date provided by HantsAV and my own research of Elliott & Fry (the original copyright holders).

File:Lady_Butlers_Charge_at_Huj.jpg: what's the source for that publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source for the actual publication date (as well as the actual name given to the painting by the artist), and added that info to the commons info.

Thanks for taking a look at this. Always appreciated. Factotem (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Are there any outstanding concerns with images? Factotem (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Factotem (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, nice work. I had a look at this when it was at peer review, and I was impressed with it then. The changes since then have improved it further. I have a few comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there are no dab or duplicate links (no action required)
the ext links all work (no action required)
typo: "alledged" --> "alleged"
"including two of only three bars ever awarded": suggest linking Medal bar here
typo: "Gibralter" --> "Gibraltar"
"The History of the 51st (Highland) Division, 1914-1918": should have an endash
"Call to Arms: the British Army 1914-18": same as above
"Defending Albion: Britain's Home Army 1908-1919": same as above
"Hay 2017": as there is now no other Hay being used, it probably doesn't need the year given that other similar instances (i.e. Bean) don't. That said, it might be easier in the long run to give all citations years
"Territorial War Medal": I wonder if this should be mentioned in text, or clarified who it was awarded to in the caption?

I've amended the text a little to include something about the medal, but don't think it needs a great deal as the article for that medal is linked. Hope that's OK. Factotem (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the images lack alt text, and although it isn't a requirement, it can assist the vision impaired: [1]
"Their shabby treatment": seems a little informal. I'd suggest "poor" or even just saying "Their treatment" as it is already implied that the treatment was poor

Thanks. Always appreciated. I believe I've addressed all issues. Factotem (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Keith-264

Biblio, I altered the Bewsher isbn to an oclc because the isbn didn't go anywhere when I clicked on and headed for Worldcat; I think it's for the N&M Press reprint ed. Some of the others might be worth checking. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith. Took the liberty of adding a section header above. Hope that's OK. Thanks for taking a look. Much appreciated.

Fair point about Bewsher. I checked, and changed the OCLC to one which Worldcat indicates relates to the computer file. That's seems most appropriate, as I used the online version. I'm sure the ISBNs for the printed publications are good, and the OCLCs used for other works in the biblio checkout OK.
Re: your edits to the lead, I've tweaked a few, hope that's OK. Mainly though, the word "territorials" is not, as far as I'm aware, a proper noun, so should not be capitalised. Having said that, Mitchinson generally does, even when using the word as an adjective. I'll have a look through the other sources, and maybe consider capitalising it. Thoughts? Factotem (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thinking on this further, we don't capitalise "soldiers" or "sailors", so I'm not really convinced that "territorials" warrants it either. Factotem (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on if it's an abbreviation of Territorial Force or not but I defer to your opinion. Keith-264 (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

All sources look to be of high quality and reliable. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kges1901

A superb article, some comments:

In Conscription debate and pre-war problems, possibly link Gloucestershire, Somerset, and Essex.

Never too sure about these sort of links, because the names refer to the County Territorial Associations and not to the counties themselves, so linking to the counties does not really add all that much to help the reader. Having said that, this is borderline, I think, so I linked them anyway. Factotem (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe initial German offensive to Race to the Sea since that appears to be what is meant.

The initial German offensive was more than the Race to the Sea, so I've not linked that itself, but I have explicitly added and linked Race to the Sea. Factotem (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In second line deployment, The divisional artillery, having initially drilled with cart-mounted logs, was equipped first with obsolete French 90 mm cannons, then with equally obsolete has a repetition of obsolete, perhaps replace the second obsolete with outmoded?

Went with "outdated". Factotem (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Gallipoli, Lieutenant-Colonel Da Costa, is his full name known?

No. I did search for it when I wrote that part, but nothing came up. Factotem (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Egypt, Sinai, and Palestine link Suez Canal. Kges1901 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Factotem (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Factotem (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

The Second Boer War exposed weaknesses in the ability of the regular army to counter guerrilla warfare What do you mean by this? What special ability did the TF have that the regulars didn't? If you mean that the regulars basically ran out of manpower because of their shitty tactics, say so.

recast as The Second Boer War exposed weaknesses in the ability of the regular army to counter guerrilla warfare which required additional manpower to overcome. The only reinforcements available were the auxiliaries...

Becke 2A and B should match the capitalization as given in the bibliography

Done

Very nicely done!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Factotem (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Sorry to pester, but I'd like to wrap this up and submit the article to FAC. Are you satisfied with my responses, or is there something more I should be doing? Thanks. Factotem (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd forgotten to watchlist this page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.