212:"As the commander in chief French's authority amongst the officer corps had been undermined by his participation in the Curragh mutiny in March 1914, when several officers threatened to resign rather then obey their orders to enforce home rule in Ireland, he became involved trying to get them to reconsider and promised Government support without the authority to do so and he later had to retract the promise and offered to resign." This is a terrible sentence, first of all you need a comma after "chief". Second, "his participation in the Curragh mutiny" makes him sound like a mutineer.
1017:. I still think there's room for improvement, but I think it does pass the criteria. One remaining concern, though, is the lead which I do not think is a very good summary of the article. Also, it's beginning to occur to me that the article might benefit from some more context (i.e., comparison of the British Army experience to that of the French, German, American, etc.)
981:
about the commanders of World War I, possibly including the other service(s). It seems a bit big at the moment, but saying that, it is all very pertinent information given the page title. The article is still big, but other than forking the commanders, I don't see much scope for reductions if I'm honest. Excellent work so far. Regards,
610:. It seems to be a complete and accurate article, but there are many places where it seems that punctuation was entirely omitted, and there are several paragraphs without a single comma in them. I'd recommend that you ask someone to do a through copy-edit of it preferably before it gets A-Class and definitely before it gets to FA. –
190:"In 1914, no British officer had controlled a force larger than a division on active operations, and there were no established procedures or relevant experience to guide them in their decisions." Surely this an overstatement, by which you mean "no living British officer" In the wars of the past (e.g., the Napoleonic War
928:
I don't oppose this at the moment but I don't think I can support it until we can reduce it a little bit more. I still note that this is a very long article and think there could still be reductions made. I notice there is a "trench warfare" section in the doctrine section as well as a large "life in
266:
I think the section on doctrine is a weak one. Among political scientists and historians, an unbelievable number of words have been devoted to the shortcomings of
British (and indeed nearly everyone's) doctrine, particularly the "cult of the offensive". I find only one glancing reference to this in
962:
Ok Trench warfare and life in the trenches sections condensed and combined, same with the recruitment section with content copied as suggested to the talk page of which I will add at a later date. Also trimmed the commanders section about as much as much as I think it will take. altogether removed
278:
The Second Boer War had taught the army the dangers posed by fire zones covered by long range magazine fed rifles. In the place of volley firing and frontal attacks, there was a greater emphasis on advancing in extended order, the use of available cover, how to use artillery to support the attack,
980:
Looks good. I can't help but think that some of the sections could be reorganised to somehow reduce the number of section headers. As it is, after re-reading it, I can't seem to think of the way to do it, therefore I can't in good faith oppose over it! I think that we could almost have a new fork
558:
I know its nitpick, but please check the citations for consistency. Some have a "p. #" while others have a "p #". (The difference being the presence or absence of a full stop". Either way is probably fine, so long as there is consistency. I would do them myself, but I don't know which style you
474:
The first paragraph of the
Aftermath section is ludicrously non-neutral. In particular "The BEF had also done something that no other British Army had done since the Duke of Wellington's army of 1815, or any British army has done since: it defeated the the main army of a European enemy on the
343:
Why have you chosen the order you did for the section on "Other fronts." The first sentence of that section "The
British Army was involved in some comparatively obscure theatres of the war" seems to imply that all the fronts discussed will be obscure. There is certainly nothing obscure about
366:"They varied in depth, but they were usually about four or five feet deep, with a built up wall to allow men to stand upright, the fire trenches were provided with a fire step built into the front wall, so the occupants could return fire during an attack." Reads poorly; I'd suggest rephrasing.
196:
s) British officer commanded larger forces; this could be considered relevant experience. Certainly, also, the
British (like all participants in the war) saw earlier conflicts as relevant, including the Russo-Japanese War, the American Civil War, and to a certain extent the Wars of German
827:: In light of the recent changes to the article, I wish to reconfirm my support for A class for this article (as previously stated earlier). Please note this is only one vote, I just felt that as the article had changed signficiantly since I voted, I should reconfirm my opinion. Cheers.
493:"The British Army tried to learn the lessons of World War I, and adopt them into its pre war doctrine, while trying to predict how advances in weapons and technology might effect any future war." If you're going to open this can of worms, then something on the Second World War is needed.
147:
When citing web sites with cite web, you seem to have used the author field only rather than the first and last fields (for example on ref 9). As such the names are displayed First Last, when convention (and what you do with the other sources) suggests you should use the Last, First
279:
flank and converging attacks, and fire and movement. The Army expected units to advance as far as possible in a firing line without opening fire both to conceal its position and conserve ammunition, then attack in successive waves, closing with the enemy in a decisive attack.
906:
Section heading and some of the western front content removed and added a weapons section including the Lee
Enfield, Vickers & Lewis machine guns, Stokes Mortar and the Mk I tank. the common artillery is pretty much covered elsewhere. There is also a link to
267:
the sentence: "Expecting an offensive mobile war it had not instructed the troops in defensive tactics and had failed to obtain stocks of barbed wire, hand grenades or trench mortars." In order to be comprehensive, the article needs far more on this.
384:" dug outs were made for living in, these gave shelter from the elements and shrapnel, but in the British Army dugouts" Please pick either dug outs or dugouts rather than using both (personally, I've seen dugouts much more commonly)
565:
there is some inconsistency in the way in which numbers are treated. Generally I believe that numbers below 10 should be spelt and 10 and above use numerals. In some cases you follow this rule and in others you
289:
In the section on the Royal Flying Corps, you refer only to its role in reconnaissance. Although the role of air power in combat was not as significant in WW1 as in later wars, I think it deserves a mention.
868:
for the moment. This is an article on the
British Army in World War I then I really feel it needs to include a summary about the weapons. I agree that the article was too big with all the information from
429:
No it was a matter of choice after a lot of thought, with 49 different artillery guns alone I could not include them all. I have added a further information heading with a link to the full list of weapons.
703:
Also, is there any way the article could be split up? It seems like this process could be easier if we were dealing with 2-3 articles individually. It would also make promoting those articles easier. -
658:
In the lead, the "division" "brigade" and "corps" links are capitalized. Generally, unless a link is a proper noun it should not be. Someone should go though the article checking capitalization.
103:
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has received a major overhaul and I believe all major points of criticism from the peer review and GA-review have been addressed...
21:
878:
I would also suggest cutting down the
Western Front section and remove the separate one paragraph headings which, in my opinion, slightly overwhelm the table of contents. (
933:
908:
870:
771:
720:
125:
a maximum length of 4 paragraphs. As several of your 8 paragraphs are small ones, I think you could probably keep most of that text by merging into larger paras.
1045:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1026:
1008:
990:
972:
951:
939:
The same with "Commanders." This seems to be quite bloated, though again I can't particularly see where it can be trimmed, or where it could be merged to.
920:
898:
856:
836:
811:
783:
753:
736:
711:
649:
621:
598:
581:
518:
134:
112:
932:
There are quite a few small paragraphs in the recruitment section, could these be merged and condensed? This doesn't seem to be a summary at the moment;
353:
I did start in datal order which was canged when moving the sections around - they have now been restord to datal order. The section has been renamed
17:
555:
in the Army
Service Corps section, please check the amount of bread delivered. It currently says "4,500,00". Should this be "45,000" or "4,500,000"?
741:
Maybe the
Campaigns (Sections 6 and 7) could be their own article? Weapons (Section 9) could do well on its own too. Knowledge (XXG) guidelines at
83:
88:
999:
Please note I am off on holiday and may not be able to respond to any changes as quickly as I would like. Thanks for the review. --
185:
What makes ref 49, Encyclopedia
Britannica, a reliable source? I remember an article saying they were less than fully accurate...
883:
The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, ... and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
50:
633:
Agree with Joe N, the article really does need a thorough copy-edit in compliance with the manual of style. Some things I see:
802:
I think that was a very good choice, though perhaps a very short and sweet summary should remain in a section on Equipment?
43:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
248:"of which 12,738 were regular officers and the rest in the reserves." for balance, should read "rest were in the reserves"
694:
Punctuation isn't consistent. Per above, I see commas and periods being used interchangably in some parts of the article.
325:
during which the BEF is involved in the Battle of Le Cateau." Surely, you mean was (unless the battle is still raging)
121:. I haven't actually read it yet, but I think the lead is a bit too long. It's currently 8 paragraphs, while the MOS
724:
509:
A great article on a topic that's very hard to cover completely, but I think there's some room for improvement here.
1036:
832:
577:
34:
727:- I do realise its on the large side but this was the largest war the British Army was involved in etc. --
1004:
968:
916:
852:
828:
779:
732:
594:
573:
532:
108:
64:
942:
Summary: needs a bit more condensing until I can fully support it for A-Class and beyond. Regards,
307:
I think more than one sentence would be appropriate leading into the section on the Western Front.
697:
Sentence structure needs to be reworked. Some sentences are run-ons while others seem incomplete.
676:
Some of the links are double linked. Most links shouldn't be linked to after the first reference.
844:
344:
Gallipoli or Mesopotamia (and probably nothing obscure about several of the others discussed)?
742:
589:
Thanks for the review it was 4,500,000 and I think have changed all the rest of the points --
122:
1000:
964:
912:
848:
775:
728:
590:
528:
104:
60:
562:
please check for irregular capitalisation, I have fixed some but there are other instances.
1022:
986:
947:
894:
807:
616:
514:
130:
770:
The article has been split with the weapons section forming the basis of a new article
641:
provided the article recieves a copy-edit, I think it is now within A criteria. -
1018:
982:
943:
890:
803:
611:
510:
438:"The British Army during World War I, was the largest" Shouldn't have a comma.
420:
Is there a particular logic to what equipment gets includes and what does not?
126:
745:
suggest articles not go much longer than 50 KB, but it's really up to you. -
721:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history/Logistics/Copy-editing/Requests
723:- where do you suggest splitting the article ? its already split off from
746:
704:
642:
936:
would be an excellent place for some of this information to be moved to.
475:
mainland of Europe." suggests that the BEF won the war alone, right....
963:
about 5,000 bytes of content. But any further suggestions welcome. --
548:: I support this article for A class, but have the following points:
357:
which I think reads better and the first sentence has been changed.
929:
the trenches section". Could they be merged and reduced somehow?
411:
Amended must have read over this 50 times and never caught it
93:
402:"500 to 6oo" are those lower case Os rather than zeroes?
873:
in it, but it does need a summary in the main article.
456:" and bigger then the American Army" should be "than"
166:
Is there a reason not to capitalize the W in ref 25?
230:"on the staff then a field command." should be than
934:Recruitment to the British Army during World War I
909:British Army uniform and equipment in World War I
871:British Army uniform and equipment in World War I
772:British Army uniform and equipment in World War I
572:Other than that, very good effort. Well done. —
527:I think most points have now been addressed --
8:
33:The following discussion is preserved as an
18:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
719:A request for copy edit has been posted at
72:
1035:The above discussion is preserved as an
75:
276:I think the paragraph above covers it
393:dugouts it is think I caught them all
7:
28:
843:Copy edit in progress thanks to
51:British Army during World War I
559:prefer (I assume it is "p #").
1:
685:Think I have got them all now
157:Changed to last- first format
725:History of the British Army
175:No and its now been changed
1062:
484:Removed the offending line
857:07:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
837:03:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
812:21:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
784:13:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
754:15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
737:08:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
712:06:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
650:16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
622:00:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
599:18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
582:00:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
519:16:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
135:15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
113:11:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
1042:Please do not modify it.
1027:15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
1009:16:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
991:19:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
973:18:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
952:17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
921:16:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
899:15:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
144:per the comments below.
40:Please do not modify it.
187:(sorry couldn't resist)
538:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
845:User talk:Twelsht
101:
100:
69:
1053:
1044:
829:AustralianRupert
751:
709:
647:
619:
614:
574:AustralianRupert
298:Section expanded
73:
57:
42:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1040:
747:
705:
643:
617:
612:
355:Other campaigns
54:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1059:
1057:
1048:
1047:
1031:
1030:
1029:
998:
996:
995:
994:
993:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
940:
937:
930:
860:
859:
840:
839:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
701:
700:
699:
698:
695:
689:
688:
687:
686:
680:
679:
678:
677:
671:
670:
669:
668:
662:
661:
660:
659:
653:
652:
635:
634:
625:
624:
604:
603:
602:
601:
570:
569:
568:
567:
563:
560:
556:
550:
549:
542:
541:
540:
539:
536:
522:
521:
506:
505:
504:
503:
497:
496:
495:
494:
488:
487:
486:
485:
479:
478:
477:
476:
469:
468:
467:
466:
460:
459:
458:
457:
451:
450:
449:
448:
442:
441:
440:
439:
433:
432:
431:
430:
424:
423:
422:
421:
415:
414:
413:
412:
406:
405:
404:
403:
397:
396:
395:
394:
388:
387:
386:
385:
379:
378:
377:
376:
370:
369:
368:
367:
361:
360:
359:
358:
348:
347:
346:
345:
338:
337:
336:
335:
329:
328:
327:
326:
320:
319:
318:
317:
311:
310:
309:
308:
302:
301:
300:
299:
293:
292:
291:
290:
284:
283:
282:
281:
271:
270:
269:
268:
261:
260:
259:
258:
252:
251:
250:
249:
243:
242:
241:
240:
234:
233:
232:
231:
225:
224:
223:
222:
216:
215:
214:
213:
207:
206:
205:
204:
194:
193:
192:
191:
188:
179:
178:
177:
176:
170:
169:
168:
167:
161:
160:
159:
158:
152:
151:
150:
149:
137:
99:
98:
97:
96:
94:External links
91:
86:
78:
77:
71:
70:
59:Nominator(s):
53:
48:
47:
46:
45:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1058:
1046:
1043:
1038:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1002:
992:
988:
984:
979:
976:
975:
974:
970:
966:
961:
960:
953:
949:
945:
941:
938:
935:
931:
927:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
910:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
896:
892:
887:
886:
884:
881:
875:
874:
872:
866:
865:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
841:
838:
834:
830:
826:
823:
822:
813:
809:
805:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
755:
752:
750:
744:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
710:
708:
696:
693:
692:
691:
690:
684:
683:
682:
681:
675:
674:
673:
672:
666:
665:
664:
663:
657:
656:
655:
654:
651:
648:
646:
640:
637:
636:
632:
631:
627:
626:
623:
620:
615:
609:
606:
605:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
564:
561:
557:
554:
553:
552:
551:
547:
544:
543:
537:
534:
530:
526:
525:
524:
523:
520:
516:
512:
508:
507:
501:
500:
499:
498:
492:
491:
490:
489:
483:
482:
481:
480:
473:
472:
471:
470:
464:
463:
462:
461:
455:
454:
453:
452:
446:
445:
444:
443:
437:
436:
435:
434:
428:
427:
426:
425:
419:
418:
417:
416:
410:
409:
408:
407:
401:
400:
399:
398:
392:
391:
390:
389:
383:
382:
381:
380:
374:
373:
372:
371:
365:
364:
363:
362:
356:
352:
351:
350:
349:
342:
341:
340:
339:
333:
332:
331:
330:
324:
323:
322:
321:
315:
314:
313:
312:
306:
305:
304:
303:
297:
296:
295:
294:
288:
287:
286:
285:
280:
275:
274:
273:
272:
265:
264:
263:
262:
256:
255:
254:
253:
247:
246:
245:
244:
238:
237:
236:
235:
229:
228:
227:
226:
220:
219:
218:
217:
211:
210:
209:
208:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
197:Unification.
189:
186:
183:
182:
181:
180:
174:
173:
172:
171:
165:
164:
163:
162:
156:
155:
154:
153:
146:
145:
143:
142:
138:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
117:
116:
115:
114:
110:
106:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
81:
80:
79:
74:
68:
66:
62:
56:
55:
52:
49:
44:
41:
36:
31:
30:
23:
19:
1041:
1034:
1015:Weak Support
1014:
997:
977:
925:
888:
882:
879:
877:
876:
867:
863:
862:
861:
824:
748:
706:
702:
644:
638:
629:
628:
607:
571:
545:
354:
277:
195:
184:
140:
139:
118:
102:
89:Citation bot
58:
39:
32:
1001:Jim Sweeney
965:Jim Sweeney
913:Jim Sweeney
849:Jim Sweeney
776:Jim Sweeney
729:Jim Sweeney
591:Jim Sweeney
529:Jim Sweeney
105:Jim Sweeney
61:Jim Sweeney
123:recommends
22:Assessment
889:Regards,
502:reworked
375:Reworked
316:Expanded
221:Reworked
203:Reworked
119:Comment'
84:Analysis
20: |
1037:archive
978:Support
926:Comment
825:Comment
743:WP:SIZE
667:Changed
639:Support
630:Comment
608:Comment
546:Support
465:Amended
447:Removed
334:Amended
257:Amended
239:Amended
148:format.
76:Toolbox
35:archive
864:Oppose
566:don't.
141:Oppose
1019:Cool3
983:Woody
944:Woody
891:Woody
804:Cool3
511:Cool3
127:Cool3
16:<
1023:talk
1005:talk
987:talk
969:talk
948:talk
917:talk
911:. --
895:talk
853:talk
847:. --
833:talk
808:talk
780:talk
733:talk
595:talk
578:talk
535:) 08
533:talk
515:talk
131:talk
109:talk
65:talk
1039:.
749:Ed!
707:Ed!
645:Ed!
613:Joe
1025:)
1007:)
989:)
971:)
950:)
919:)
897:)
880:A3
855:)
835:)
810:)
782:)
774:--
735:)
597:)
580:)
517:)
133:)
111:)
37:.
1021:(
1003:(
985:(
967:(
946:(
915:(
893:(
885:)
851:(
831:(
806:(
778:(
731:(
618:N
593:(
576:(
531:(
513:(
129:(
107:(
67:)
63:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.