Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Territorial Force/archive1

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) 08:52, 14 October 2018 [1].

---

Territorial Force

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The Territorial Force was a British part-time military auxiliary, formed in 1908 by the consolidation of the existing Volunteer Force and yeomanry auxiliaries. Political compromise meant that it was confined to a home defence role rather than reinforcing the regular army in operations overseas as originally intended. It was ridiculed in peacetime, and on the outbreak of the First World War Kitchener ignored it in favour of his New Army as a means of reinforcing the regular army. Despite these indignities, 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 successfully completed a MILHIST A-Class review in which it received both a source and image review. Factotem (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Check alphabetization of Bibliography

• Suggest adding county for Solihull. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed silly error in bibliography order and added county. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Prose in the lead:

• "but political opposition resulted in it being assigned to home defence"—not the most elegant wording. "its" would be grammatical, but maybe: "but because of political opposition it was assigned to home defence".
• "Members could be deployed anywhere in the UK but could not be compelled to serve overseas." could be, could not be. Why not simpler? "Members were deployed anywhere in the UK, but were not compelled to serve overseas."

The statement refers to the legal constraint on the force's use, not how it was actually used. I think it would be misleading to express that in the way you suggest because members were not actually deployed anywhere until the First World War.

I don't understand your argument. What is not legal about "but were not compelled to serve overseas"? Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The whole point of that sentence is the legislation governing how the territorials could be deployed, not how they were actually deployed. In addition to my point above about not being deployed anywhere until WWI, they did in fact become liable for service overseas when new legislation was introduced in 1916. The sentence has already been re-written as "Members were liable for service anywhere in the UK but could not be compelled to serve overseas." Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• "transferred into the force"—here's an instance where you could cap the F (throughout). But I don't mind if you don't.

A similar issue came up in the ACR regarding the capitalisation of "territorials". I'm not sure it's approrpiate, in the same way that we write "army" when referring to the British Army.

• "It was not well regarded by the regular army, which did not consider it an effective military body, and was denigrated by the proponents of conscription."—very messy logic, unless the regular army really was denigrated. If it was, the wording needs to be clarified.

Not sure I see the problem here. It seems clear to me that "it" refers throughout the sentence to the Territorial Force, and "which..." introduces a parenthetical clause, so I'm not sure how it could be construed that it was the regular army that was denigrated. I could write "...and it was denigrated...", but I thought this was discouraged as a word that should be removed in favour of ellipsis.

No, don't allow such an ambiguity to creep into your writing. Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Already re-written as " It was not considered to be an effective military force by the regular army and was denigrated by the proponents of conscription." Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• "by deploying some territorial units to imperial garrisons"—only use "some" if you want to mark the point that it wasn't a lot. Otherwise, just the plural is enough.

Six of one and half a dozen of the other? Four of the fourteen territorial divisions were deployed to imperial garrisons, so I'm not sure that "some" is all that much of an issue.

Why don't you specify "four", then? Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Because that's not the whole story, which, for reasons of summary style, is not in included in the main body of the article. "Some" is now history. Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Intended to release regulars from line of communication duties, the losses sustained during the initial German offensive resulted in territorial battalions being attached to regular army brigades and pressed into action."—This sentence is a train-wreck. Same grammatical awkwardness I pointed to in the first bullet ("battalions being attached"—use explicit causal items like "because" or "since"?). So it was the losses that were intended to release? And don't we need two hyphens in the first phrase? Chicago MOS says we do; New Harts says we do; so does our MOS.

Ha ha, yes. Sloppy writing from me there.

• "They were credited with playing a key role in stopping the offensive and praised "—Who is they? I see three people-type plural items in the previous sentence, and it could even refer to "losses". Try to avoid keeping the reader hanging on the meaning until later in a sentence; and "were praised" would stop us momentarily wondering whether "they" did the praising.

More sloppiness from me.

• "and as more arrived they began to be committed to offensive operations"—maybe. Consider "they were committed", unless you really need to mark its beginningness. And "committed" is ambiguous; "assigned"?

The professional army harboured a significant and long-standing prejudice and was very reluctant to rely on the amateur territorials, so the beginningness is intentional. "Assigned" conveys to me the sense that the territorials were allocated a role in plans. Doesn't "committed" better convey the sense that they actually did go into action?

Yes it does convey that better, but as a reader my first understanding was that they were "committed" by someone further up the chain. It's ambiguous. It would clarify matters if "their personal commitment grew", or some such, were possible. It's no good as it is. Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Genuinely confused by this. Replaced "began to be committed to offensive operations" with "began to participate in offensive operations". Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That's much clearer, though you've changed your intended meaning a little. If you're ok, I'm ok. Tony (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• "most of which were later released for service overseas when a third line was raised"—you've lost me. I tried to identify in previous text where the first two "lines" were—whatever a line is.

First, second and third lines are standard terms for the subject, but perhaps stray into military jargon and could be better explained. It probably doesn't help that I refer to the Territorial Force as a "...second-line reinforcement..." in the first paragraph.

It doesn't. Please write for non-expert intelligent adults. Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Already completely re-worked. Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Awkward ellipsis of "to": "such as the rights not to be compelled to serve overseas and not be transferred to another unit".

?? Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Also already re-worked and, just now, re-worked even further. Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Gripping topic, with lots of tension, politics, drama. But is the rest of the article worded better than this? If spot-checks show there are problems more generally, I'm inclined to suggest Withdraw, rework, and resubmit. Tony (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It's much appreciated. I've commented above on most of your points. I fully understand that you're providing an opinion on the suitability of the candidate based on the quality of the prose in general, not suggesting a few fixes which, if addressed, will earn a support. This candidacy appears to be doomed, which is disappointing of course, but so be it. You've kinda left it a bit open, though, with the "If spot-checks show there are problems more generally..." statement. Would you mind doing a very quick scan of another section and letting me know what you think? I don't need any further examples of sub-par prose, just a simple yay or nay. The lead is, for me, one of the more difficult sections to perfect and I'm just looking for confirmation that in your opinion the main body of the article demonstrates the same need for improvement. Factotem (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Factotem, I will, tomorrow. Got a headache right now. It would be nice to have this as an FA. Let's also see what the other reviewers have to say. Tony (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Although not the main point of the comments made, I have, I hope, fixed the most serious of the specific issues listed above. Factotem (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Tony1, I'm reading this that you are NOT currently suggesting that this is withdrawn? I'm not entirely clear if you are opposing, but I'm happy to wait for input from other reviewers. Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro and Factotem, sorry to lag in getting back. I shouldn't have bolded my "withdraw" comment, given that I was wavering ... and wavering isn't enough. But it does need work. Sigh, here's the next tranche—but I try not to get into the role of complete copy-editor. Up to the nominator (and collaborators?) to apply the lessons in this spot-check:

• Caption for Haldane: no dot at end, I think. Fussy, isn't it.
• "Militia representatives, however, refused to agree to be absorbed into either the regular army or the Territorial Force, and after three attempts to persuade them, Haldane decided to abolish the militia altogether in favour of the new Special Reserve." It's longish with lots of bumps. This is only a suggestion. Disregard if you don't like it: "But militia representatives refused to be absorbed into either the regular army or the Territorial Force; after three attempts to persuade them, Haldane abolished the militia altogether in favour of the new Special Reserve." Bit of fluff removed, nothing wrong with a but or two at sentence openings; semicolon maybe, just to break it up for the reader ... but you decide.
• This one is a stronger case for a semicolon: "The County Territorial Associations were chaired by Lord Lieutenants and run by traditional county military elites; but Haldane's plan to give civic, business and trade union leaders a major role in running them was significantly reduced in the face of opposition to civilian encroachment in military affairs."
• "Most crucially"—Crucially is already very strong.
• "To ensure their support, Haldane was obliged to drop all mention of an overseas role and emphasise instead its purpose in home defence." – Maybe gain. Is the subsequent streamlining ok? To gain their support, Haldane dropped all mention of an overseas role, instead emphasising its purpose in home defence." Look for ways of simplifying, trimming, straightening, making plainer ... everywhere.
• Just checking that this proposition is in the right place: "The divergence between intended and stated role caused significant difficulties for the Territorial Force throughout its existence." If it's a summary statement, why not push it earlier? Or if it spins directly off the previous sentence, can that be made clearer in the wording?
• There are 20 instances of "also". Do you need them all? Tony (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No need at all for apologies, and I certainly don't expect you to get drawn into copy-editing the article.

• "Look for ways of simplifying, trimming, straightening, making plainer ... everywhere."

• I did. The article history and its litany of "ce" edits will demonstrate that. The result, I'm afraid, is what you are kindly giving some time out of your day to review.

• I must confess I find it difficult to know how to respond. Notwithstanding the howlers I perpetrated in the lead, many of your observations seem to me to be different ways of making the point, rather than flaws in the prose that are significant enough to cast doubt on promotion.

• Is "gain" really such an improvement over "ensure"?
• I can accept that I might overuse the word "however", but if there's nothing wrong with a "but" or two at the beginning of sentences, couldn't the same be said about the occasional use of however within them?

When you say "overuse", do you mean you insert too many "corners" into your text (yet ...; but ...; however, ...; instead, ...; by contrast, ... etc), or do you mean you overuse one particular wording to indicate a corner to the readers? Tony (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I meant that one particular word, but I'm sensing a hint here. I took the opportunity yesterday to review the number of corners I put into my writing, and trimmed out a few buts and howevers. I still need to review my use of "and" to see if I'm not over-complicating sentences or committing(!) acts of inappropriate conjunction, but I've been busy over at the FQSR workshop today and need to get on with other things now. Hopefully tomorrow. Factotem (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Little later than planned, but I've run through another copyedit. As well as simplifying awkward/removing redundant prose, I've looked into cutting corners, so to speak. There are still 13 instances of "also", but five are WP's "See also" links, and not embedded into the prose. I've kept a single "however". There's still quite a lot of "but", but I think these are ligitimate contrasting statements. Whether I've done enough to allay any concerns about the prose is obviously not my call, but the article is now, for better or worse, the best I can achieve. Factotem (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• And I will never, in a million years, see how changing one comma to a semi-colon improves that admittedly difficult sentence. What's more, to me, the semi-colon now makes that "but" stick out like a sore thumb.

• Some other obervations you make seek to eliminate wording that I still think is important. Haldane, for example, was indeed obliged to drop all mention of an overseas role. It was such an essential part of his plans that he did not do so until eight days before he introduced the legislation he'd been working on for the past year. This compromise, more than any other, wrecked his designs and condemned the force to ridicule (which, incidently, is why I felt it necessary to reinforce the already strong and now unreinforced "crucially").
• Please don't think I'm trying to be dismissive of your input; I'll fix those issues that are obvious to me, but I'm not sure how to move forward from here. It doesn't help that two of your comments seem to me optional, PR type suggestions rather than fixes for poor prose. I'm happy to put in some effort to address obvious problems, but if, in your opinion, the issues you have identified so far provide sufficient grounds to oppose and are endemic throughout (and I'm not asking for a complete list of problems; I fully understand the principle of sampling), then a) I'm not sure I have the eye to identify those issues, and b) I don't believe it's appropriate to undertake such extensive rework within the FAC process.
• Note to co-ords I realise that an oppose from Tony1 at this stage of the candidacy would probably trigger archival, but if that is his conclusion, I hope that this candidate would have at least the opportunity to still garner further review. The subject is complex and involved a fair amount of effort to compile and present in summary style. I've already exhausted both PR and ACR for feedback. I'm hoping that fresh eyes will provide one final validation of the content, even if the style is found wanting. Factotem (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: Any further thoughts? Factotem (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1909, some 37 per cent of the rank and file were under 20 years old, a proportion that, in the opinion of the Inspector-General of the Home Forces, rendered the force too immature to be effective." Simplify the structure? "In 1909, some 37 per cent of the rank and file were under 20 years old; in the opinion of the Inspector-General of the Home Forces, this proportion rendered the force too immature to be effective." Why then, is it now easy for our readers? Please analyse it yourself.

Breaks the sentence up into more easily digested chunks?

• "Given the Territorial Force's perceived weakness and lack of liability for foreign service, the military authorities prioritised expenditure on the regular army, leaving the force armed with obsolete weapons." This is the last sentence in its paragraph. I may be wrong, but check it shouldn't go earlier as a summary introduction to the details.

I've amended that sentence to read "Because of the Territorial Force's perceived weakness and lack of liability for foreign service, the military authorities prioritised expenditure on the regular army, leaving the force armed with obsolete weapons." The poor funding was a consequence, so isn't it logical to place that sentence at the end?

Sorry to be a bore, but on reviewing this review, I notice it's unclear who was doing the perceiving. Do you mean "reputation for"? Presumably it was the opinion of the military authorities—but this is crucial to the story, so can it be clarified? "Because the military authorities regarded the Territorial Force as weak and resented that it was not liable for foreign service, they prioritised ...". Would that work? But only you know the info. Tony (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Does "Because the military authorities regarded the Territorial Force as weak and saw no value in an auxiliary that was not liable for foreign service, they prioritised..." read better? Factotem (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice. Tony (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• First World War section. I'd bin the first also, and retain the second.

Really? Of all the incidences of "also", I would have said that first one is the most necessary; it's part of a "not only...but also" construction. I've googled "not only...but also", and everything I've read seems to support that use of "also".

I'm sure you'll find millions of hits for "in order to", as well. Doesn't stop it being bad English in all but a tiny minority of instances. What is not clear in "not only X ... but Y"? Tony (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. It's gone. Factotem (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• For commas, size up a whole sentence. I think the first one can go for better flow: "He also believed that, because so few territorials had thus far volunteered for foreign service, the Territorial Force was better suited for home defence than as a means of expanding the field army."
• Another clunky one: "This division was, along with the 52nd (Lowland) Division, transferred to France in 1918." Change order and remove comma. This is an easy way to improve the writing more generally.
• "By the end of the campaign, in which the EEF had advanced across the Sinai, through Palestine and into Syria, territorial casualties numbered over 32,000, more than those suffered by British regular, Australian, New Zealand and Indian forces combined, which totalled just over 29,000." You have the field knowledge to do this; I can only guess at something more under control:

  "By the end of a campaign in which the EEF had advanced across the Sinai, through Palestine, and into Syria, territorial casualties numbered over 32,000 – more than the 29,000 suffered by British regular, Australian, New Zealand and Indian forces combined."

It's just so long for one reviewer to sift through. Slightly unwillingly, I'm not objecting to promotion on the basis of 1a; but I think you need more eyes on a nomination before submission to FAC. Many things are good, so I hope the writing can improve. Tony (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've queried a couple of the points above, the rest have been addressed in the article as suggested. Will take your general points on board for future noms. Factotem (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a problem that this has been on the list for so long. Excellent and copious reviews by my colleagues, I must say, and good responses by Factotem. But this shows how under-prepared the article was. I think we're persisting because it's a ripping yarn, and we'll be proud when it's an FA. But please don't use FAC as a fix-it service. The prose is looking better, but I still see glitches here and there:

• "By December, twenty-two infantry battalions, seven yeomanry regiments, one medical and three engineer units had been sent." Listing glitch: battalions, regiments, and then medical gets nothing. I think you meant to put "and" before "one".

Another issue where I still don't see the problem even after you point it out to me, but I've added "and" as suggested.

• "As the territorials' completed their training and the threat of invasion receded, complete divisions began to be deployed to combat theatres."—apostrophe? And unless you really need to mark the inchoateness (my word) of the process, why not "were deployed". It starts with an "As" already.

Had to look up inchoate, and yes, it was a conscious decision on my part to emphasise the start of a process. I can see the difficulty here though by the way the sentence starts, and fixed as suggested.

• What's your boundary for numerals vs spelt-out numbers? I see "fourteen" but "28".

I try to follow MOS:NUMERAL; not sure how this one snuck through.

• Weird: "The Territorial Force had, however, filled the gap torn into the regular army by the German offensive of 1914"— h, h. Why not "But the Terriorial Force had filled ..."? Let's move on from pronouncements from a century ago that we're not allowed to start sentences with "But". How do you tear a gap into an army?

Is "But the Territorial Force had filled the gaps created in the regular army by the German offensive of 1914..." any better?

• "They succeeded in reaching the German second line of defences, but were forced to retire with heavy losses when the regular forces on their right did not." Did not do what? Retire? Reach? Please hunt down these things in your writing, in future. Test how items match across stretches of text.

Re-structured the sentence to read "They succeeded in reaching the German second line of defences, but when the regular forces on their right did not the territorials were forced to retire with heavy losses." which I think fixes this. Not sure if there should be a comma before "the territorials were forced..." though. Correct comma usage confounds me at the best of times.

• "re-shuffle"—nowadays, like to-day, not hyphenated.

Fixed.

• Hunt down "meant that" ... second one I've seen today. Simpler grammar: "and a lull in operations meant that many of the 52 territorial units still attached to regular army formations could be returned to their own parent commands." -> "and a lull in operations allowed many of the 52 territorial units still attached to regular army formations to be returned to their own parent commands."

All incidences of "meant that" hunted down and shot on sight.

That's just a few paragraphs, right? Eek, there's so much more. Tony (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a frustrating exercise for me too, but I appreciate the time and effort you've put into this. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D

I meant to review this at ACR, but unfortunately didn't get up to it. I'm pleased to do so now. I have the following comments:

• I'd suggest that the first sentence make it clear that this was an element of the British Army

Done.

• The lead is probably a bit too detailed: I found it somewhat heavy going. Rejigging it so that the first para summarises the topic (per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH), with the second and third paras providing key details would be preferable.

Really not sure how to respond to this, much less fix it. Can you bear with me? Need to look into what MoS says, and try and see the problems you see.

The first para should provide a stand alone summary of the article, with the other paras in the lead covering other key details. At present the first para covers about the first third of the article instead, which is a bit daunting for readers - this doesn't ease them into the article. I've tried to do this in the FAs I've taken the lead on if some examples would be helpful (not saying that they're perfect!). As an example, in the Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom article's lead I tried to cover all of the Australian forces sent to the UK in the first para and then expanded on this in the other two paras by explaining the main deployments. I tried to do roughly the same thing in the much more complex Air raids on Japan article - the first para is a very high level summary, and the others describe what the campaign involved and its consequences. This means that the structure of the lead is a bit different to the structure of the article as the first para cuts across the entire article, while the others summarise the key issues in a more linear way. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I've re-jigged the lead completely along these lines in my sandbox. Would you mind having a look and letting me know if it's any better? Factotem (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

That looks better - nice work. I think that there's scope for some further streamlining though. In regards to the first para, I'd suggest cutting the second sentence, expanding a bit on the TF's wartime role, and noting its post-war fate (so that it fully stands alone). The other paras look good, but are a bit complex still. I'd suggest deleting the sentence "Territorial units were among the best in the British Army by the war's end, though by that time there was little to distinguish between regular, territorial and new-army formations." given that it's confusing: as there was no longer any difference between the make-up of the units, they can't be meaningfully compared against each other (I presume that most of the pre-war TF soldiers were casualties by this time as well). Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Very few battalions had even a handful of originals left. How does that sandbox look to you now? Factotem (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good - I'd suggest dropping it into the article Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Factotem (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Were the auxiliaries disbanded when the TF was established? If not, what was their role?

Yes. Both Volunteer Force and the yeomanry ceased to exist as separate organisations. I understand that one VF battalion remained on the Isle of Man, and there are still a couple of militia units existing to this day, but these are tiny details that don't, I believe, warrant a mention.

I might have missed something, but I got confused about the status of the various reserve forces. A clearer statement of how the TF replaced them would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The article currently states "The Territorial Force was established on 1 April 1908 by the amalgamation of the Volunteer Force and the yeomanry." I'm not sure how that does not make it clear that the VF and yeomanry ceased to exist in their own right. That's fairly standard for military units, isn't it? I could add "..., which both ceased to exist.", but it seems to me that's just being unnecessarily wordy. Factotem (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• The article discusses the various problems with the TF (real and perceived) before WW1, including its problems attracting volunteers, but doesn't explain what motivated substantial numbers of people to volunteer for the force and actively participate in it. Could this be discussed? The "Erosion of the territorial identity" covers this kind of issue during the war, and corresponding material on the period before the war would be very interesting.

I've re-read the chapter on recruitment in Mitchinson's England's Last Hope, which is the most detailed source, but he does not go into detail on what motivated men to join. The closest he comes is the boost to recruitment that occurred as a result of invasion scares in 1909, and I've edited the article to make this clear.

I've also found a few lines in another of his works which discusses how the associations attempted to recruit new members. It addresses the issue of what motivated men to join only obliquely, by emphasising how the associations focused on pride in a territorial (i.e. one's home area, not the force) identity, but does tie in with the later discussion of the erosion of territorial (i.e. the TF) identity. Factotem (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Social military history can be thin on the ground, unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• " because so few territorials had thus far accepted the Imperial Service Obligation" - could this be explained? Was the obligation something TF personnel needed to opt into before the war?

Members could accept the Imperial Service Obligation at any time. I'm not sure if there's much more that can be said about this. I've amended this to read "..because so few territorials had thus far volunteered for foreign service...". Does that make it any clearer?

What the obligation was and how it worked isn't clear at present Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Struggling to see how this is not adequately explained in the "Formation" section by the sentences, "Members were not required to serve overseas unless they volunteered to do so. Haldane, who still regarded the force's primary function to be the expansion of the Expeditionary Force, hoped that between a sixth and a quarter of the force would volunteer. The option to do so was formalised by the introduction of the Imperial Service Obligation in 1910." Territorials simply signed a form to say they would be willing to serve overseas. That's all there was to it. There was no other mechanism in place. It wasn't until war actually broke out that they started thinking about how it would work, which is where the second line comes in. Factotem (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe quoting the sources would help explain. Beckett: "But, after six months training upon mobilisation, the territorials would be ready for overseas service and Haldane hoped that between a sixth and a quarter of the territorials would volunteer for such overseas service in advance by taking what in 1910 became known as the imperial service obligation." Dennis: "Political presures from the Volunteer and Yeomanry representatives and from [Haldane's] his own Liberal colleagues, forced him to abandon his plan to make the Territorials liable to service overseas, an obligation that was fundamental to his concept of their proper role. Instead [Haldane] had to rely upon the hope that [the territorials] would voluntarily accept the imperial service obligation, and that if the occasion arose they would not shrink from the call." That's it. That's pretty much all the sources say about it. Maybe the capitalisation is making it appear more of a thing than it actually is? Someone else did that, and I just went with it. Not sure if it's correct or not, and I notice that neither Beckett nor Dennis capitalise it. Factotem (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What the ISO was is never explained - the para which introduces it states "Members were not required to serve overseas unless they volunteered to do so. Haldane, who still regarded the force's primary function to be the expansion of the Expeditionary Force, hoped that between a sixth and a quarter of the force would volunteer. The option to do so was formalised by the introduction of the Imperial Service Obligation in 1910" - what did the ISO involve? (were people who signed up to it compelled to serve overseas if called up? Was this anywhere in the world, or only the British Empire? Did they receive any extra pay, etc, for signing up, etc?) Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I've amended the text in the hope that it will clarify. It now reads, "Haldane, who still regarded the force's primary function to be the expansion of the Expeditionary Force, hoped that up to a quarter of all territorials would volunteer on mobilisation. The Imperial Service Obligation, introduced in 1910, allowed territorials to volunteer in advance." The sources don't go into any more detail, and there really is nothing more to say about this. Members who accepted the ISO volunteered, so there's no question of compulsion. There's no indication in the sources that they received any extra remuneration for accepting the ISO. That they served in France shows that the obligation was not restricted to the empire. Factotem (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• "the deployment of second-line units overseas was officially endorsed in mid 1915, but until the third line was ready, the conflicting demands to supply drafts, defend the homeland and prepare for deployment caused problems for the second line." - this sentence is a bit over-complex. I'd suggest splitting it into two sentences.

Done.

• "Despite the preference of General Ian Hamilton, Commander-in-Chief of the Home Forces, for the Territorial Force to be deployed to the Western Front in complete brigades and divisions, individual battalions were detached to regular brigades" - why did this occur? Was it because not complete brigades or divisions were combat ready, while some battalions where, or was it something more ad-hoc?

The TF was supposed to be defending home shores. Individual units were sent because there was a desperate need for reinforcements in France, and the TF was all that was available. There wasn't much logic in the selection of units sent, other than they needed to have had enough men volunteer for foreign service. I think this is all explained in the article, albeit not in one place, isn't it?

Concentrating the material a bit more would help. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I've amended the last clause to read "..., it was deployed piecemeal. The pressing need for troops meant that individual battalions were sent as soon as they reached a degree of efficiency and attached to regular brigades." The sentence explaining that there was little logic to the choice of which units were sent has been moved up to follow it, and the footnote expanded with a detailed explanation of how little we know about why certain units were chosen above others. Does that look OK now? Factotem (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• In the 'Filling the gap' section, full TF brigades and divisions appear on the Western Front. Could the process through which they were sent be explained?

Sorry. Don't understand the question. I'm assuming it's not about how they were shipped, ports of embarkation and disembarkation etc. The deployment of full divisions was a continuation of the process begun when individual battalions were sent. It was driven by the severe losses suffered by the regular army and the fact that the New Army was not yet ready, which I think is covered already in the article.

I've moved a few sentences up from the following section, so that the appearance of the Northumbrian Division on the Western Front in the "Filling the gap" section is not so sudden. I've also added some preamble to explain that divisions began to be deployed once they completed their training and the threat of invasion had receded. Is this what you were looking for? Factotem (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This looks good Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• What did the three TF divisions deployed to India do? Where they used for colonial garrison-type roles? (the Australian historian Peter Stanley has a forthcoming book on the subject)

Garrison duties. Is that not clear from the article?

Not really. Were they being used for policing-type tasks, or in a conventional role? As this was a significant deployment, a bit more material would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources I have go into any detail about the specific tasks undertaken by the TF in India, or any of the other garrison posts TF units took over. Factotem (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. Peter Stanley's book should cover this when its released. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Why did so many men volunteer for the TF rather than the New Army?

  No information in the sources.

  Simpkins (1988), p. 100: "Of course, not everyone joined the Pals battalions in the autumn of 1914. The Territorial Force too had its attractions for men wishing to enlist with their friends in a local unit, and the creation of the second-line Territorial units from the latter half of August onwards gave them further opportunities to do so. 235,195 men volunteered for the Territorial Force in the first quarter of the war, and an additional 129,224 between 11 November 1914 and 3 February 1915. In October, 1914, thirty-six out of eighty-three recruiting districts in the United Kingdom recorded a higher number of enlistments for the Territorial Force than for Kitchener units and the Special reserve, and ten of those districts, mainly in Ireland, had no Territotial Formations." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question of why men volunteered for the TF in preference to the NA. Beckett touches on the issue. He mentions that the TF had wider age limits and lower height requirements, but does not link this explicitly to recruits' motivation for choosing the TF over the NA. He also makes contradictory statements about the attractiveness of the territorials' ability to volunteer for home service only. On the one hand, he states, "How far this [ability] was an important factor in territorial recruiting is unknown...", and on the other he states, "There is some evidence to suggest that home service had been an attractive option, incomplete returns for Caernarvon between September and December 1914 suggesting that the ratio of home to foreign service enlistments ran four to one...". Not sure any of these statements offer anything that could be used to definitively support assertions about men's motivations for joining the TF in preference to the NA. Factotem (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Might sources on the New Army discuss this? I suspect that there isn't a clear answer though: presumably people joined the TF because it was familiar, their friends were already in it, they didn't know there was a difference, the line out the front of the recruiting office was shorter, etc. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I have the book Hawkeye7 quoted from above, but can find nothing in it that gives any insight on why men chose the TF over the NA. Factotem (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)–

OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• The article comes across as rather sympathetic to the TF. Have historians commented on problems with the UK having, in effect, two or three armies during WW1, or whether the Government should have attempted to introduce conscription before the war rather than raise what was seen as a half-baked reserve? Has there also been any commentary on the negative side of regional recruitment? - while the article presents the views of those who opposed the dilation of TF units' regional characteristics, a key problem with this was that if such a unit had a bad day in battle (and in WW1 many units were almost completely destroyed in major battles) it resulted in utter disaster for the community from which it was drawn. As I understand it, the "Pals' Battalions" are regarded as having been a major mistake on these grounds, and the British Army rapidly mixed up their personnel after many of them were wiped out in the Battle of the Somme. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Re: sympathetic treatment. Not sure about this. I have only reflected what the sources say. I haven't held back on the ridicule or the poor reputation of the force before the war, nor have I glossed over any of it's failures.
• Re: three distinct armies. I believe I have covered this adequately throughout the article. I'll have another look though.

Mallinson's The Making of the British Army does not appear to touch on the subject of the British having three (or four) different types of army during WWI. Simkins' chapter "The Four Armies 1914–1918" in Chandlers' The Oxford History of the British Army focusses on the issue, but it relates entirely to difficulties of recruitment. The sources I have used go into more detail about the issues encountered as a result of the territorials' distinct identity, and I'm fairly sure I touched upon all the key aspects throughout the article (though I have added a sentence on how the TF competed with the NA for recruits and how the NA was prioritised over the TA for regular training staff and equipment). Factotem (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• The conscription debate as it affected the TF is covered in the article. Are there any specific issues I need to address? There's a lot to be said about the subject in general, as well as the various issues relating to recruitment leading up to conscription, but I'm not sure that's relevant to this article.
• I'm aware of the issues with the Pals battalions, but this is not a feature that appears in the sources about the TF. I think, and this is only speculation, it may be because TF units' first experience of battle was spread over a longer time period. Some fought first in the initial German offensive of 1914, others at Ypres in early 1915, others still at Gallipoli and Loos later that year, etc. Even the 48th (South Midland) Division, whose first major action was at the Battle of the Somme in 1916, had spent over a year taking not insignificant numbers of casualties while serving tours of duty in the trenches.

Thanks for the review. Where I can, I've addressed the issues you raise in the article. Others I've responded to above – I will have another look at them to see if there's anything I can do to clarify, but I'm less sure about them. I'm really not sure what to do about the lead. Obviously I don't see the problems you do, otherwise I wouldn't have written it that way, so it's going to take some time for me to understand and address. Factotem (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Any further thoughts? Factotem (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response - please see my extra comments above. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed: great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

I looked at this article back at PR, and I endorse it as FAC-worthy. It is a superb article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Just FTR, I'm treating this comment as supporting promotion to FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Status

This nom has had a lot of attention but from a relatively small and dedicated group of reviewers -- we really need at least one more comprehensive set of comments before considering promotion, as well as an image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I've put in a request at MILHIST for help, and asked Nikkimaria, who completed a full IR during the article's ACR, to have another look at the images. Factotem (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

• in the lead, "the German offensive" presumably in 1914? Perhaps add a link and the year?

You're referring there to the second mention of "German offensive" in the third para. "German offensive" is introduced in the first para, where the year is also given. I have linked that first mention to Race to the Sea - that's a bit of an easter egg, but I don't see how to handle it better. I think the words "German offensive of 1914" are necessary because of that second mention later, but there's no article for German offensive of 1914 to link to.

• suggest that, as New Army is a proper noun, "Regular and New Armies" or "regular army and New Army"?, this also occurs in the final sentence of the lead

Done.

Background

• the division between the forces sent to South Africa isn't clear. There is use of the term "army" and then "army reserve" regarding the Second Boer War, do these have their plain meaning, or should it be "regular army" and "Army Reserve". I don't have a view, just sounding out what the story was.

Re-written to state regular army, and remove mention of army reserve. The source just used "army reserve" for the initial tranche of volunteers, but when it gives the c.20,000 figure, it states only that the VF volunteers saw active service.

• suggest "separate Imperial Yeomanry for which"

Done.

• "UK" is used without introduction, perhaps "British coast"?

Done.

• "exposed the difficulty" what difficulty? The restrictions on their overseas service?

Yes, but need to re-research this sentence - it may have to go.

Re-checked the source, and amended that sentence to read "The war also exposed the difficulty in relying on auxiliary forces which were not liable for service overseas as a source of reinforcements for the regular army in times of crisis. Factotem (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• suggest "six months of training following mobilisation"

Done.

Formation

• I think note c would be better in the body, as it begs the question what happened to the militia

Not sure about this. I think it's important to state what happened to the militia, but it's not really relevant at that precise point in the narrative. That the militia was replaced by the Special Reserve is already mentioned at the end of the 2nd para of the "Reform efforts" section. The real purpose of note c is to explain the regular army's regimental structure, i.e. 2 regular battalions and a 3rd (reserve) battalion, so that it does not appear so odd that the first TF battalion in the Gloucestershire Regiment was numbered the 4th battalion.

• it would be useful to explain that the 1st-3rd Battalions of the Gloucestershire Regiment were regular army, if that is correct

Done.

• drop the commas from "another, obligatory, year in times of crisis"

Dropping both would alter the meaning to say that there was already one obligatory year. Simplified to "They enlisted for a four-year term which could be extended by an obligatory year in times of crisis".

• "had the options"

Struggled repeatedly with this myself. I've simplified the narrative just to say that they could terminate their enlistment. I don't think that the options to re-enlist or join the regular army are all that important.

• "Members were not required to serve overseas unless they volunteered to do so." a requirement isn't created by volunteering. Suggest "Members had to volunteer to serve overseas."

Re-written as "Members were not required to serve overseas but could volunteer to do so" ("had" would imply some sort of compulsion).

• Expeditionary Force isn't linked or explained earlier

The Expeditionary Force is previously introduced in the last para of the section "Reform efforts". There is an article on the BEF, but that is not relevant to the pre-war Expeditionary Force, so there's nothing to link.

• suggest "The diversion of the militia into the Special Reserve rendered Haldane's target of just over 314,000 officers and men for the Territorial Force unattainable."

Not sure diversion is the right word here. Will think on it some.

Really don't like "diversion". Would "The failure to secure the support of the militia rendered Haldane's target of just over 314,000 officers and men for the Territorial Force unattainable." fix this for you? Factotem (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it really that the exclusion of the militia from the TF that actually made the target unattainable, rather than the failure to secure the militia's support? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It was indeed, as you say and I originally wrote, the exclusion of the militia that rendered the target unobtainable. I think this is largely a semantic detail, but I don't like using "diversion". The militia wasn't diverted anywhere, it was abolished completely. Factotem (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Was the original wording in the article "exclusion"? If so, I am mortified. Either way, I suggest it is a far better wording than diversion, and also better than describing it as a lack of "support". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It was, and is again now. Factotem (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• 'class corps' is unexplained, and is then compared to the 'officer corps' Do you mean 'other ranks'?

'class corps' is explained immediately ("The 'class corps', which recruited from the more affluent urban centres..."). Good point about mixing 'class corps' and 'officer corps' terms though. I've re-written the sentence following 'class corps' as "Territorial officers were predominantly middle class...".

This still doesn't work for me, as it isn't clear what this 'class corps' was, was it a specific part of the TF, or is it a general term to refer to the rank-and-file of the TF who were other than unskilled labourers? Or is it the middle class rank-and-file, or they and the middle class officers combined? I don't think you need to use the term 'class corps' at all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. The term 'class corps' comes up a few times in the sources, but not in this article, so I've amended the sentence to read "Units which recruited from the more affluent urban centres contained a significant proportion of well-educated white-collar workers." Factotem (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• suggest "the regular army's more privileged officer corps"

Done.

• suggest "The regular army had no more faith"

Done. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Much appreciated. I've addressed nearly all the above as suggested. There's a few I'm not sure about - comments above if you want to press/discuss further.Factotem (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Just wondering if you intend to revisit/offer more feedback? Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted. Will finish this review in the next couple of days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Conscription debate and pre-war problems

• suggest "unit esprit de corps" and link to morale

Done.

• suggest "6,000 did not attend any training at all" if that is what is meant. At present it reads like 6,000 didn't attend the annual camp.

It was indeed only the annual camp that was missed.

Sorry, I may be being thick here, but if the TF was 246,000 in 1913, it must have been about that in 1912, and if only 155,000 of them turned up to their annual camp in 1912, then more like 90,000 didn't turn up to annual camp, not 6,000? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The devil is in the detail. Territorials were required to attend between eight and fifteen days of annual camp, and only 155,000 "completed the full 15-day annual camp". Factotem (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

First World War

• "expanding the field army" perhaps "regular army"? If that is what is meant?

Field army is what is meant here.

Which field army then? I didn't think the BEF had any armies this early on? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I was using, perhaps incorrectly, the term 'field army' to refer to the divisions deployed to fight overseas which, at this stage of the war, was the BEF. Amended now to read "expanding the army overseas". I don't believe it's necessary to qualify that as "regular army overseas" – at this stage there was no other army, and later there would be the New Army. Factotem (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Special Service Sections" I think it necessary to state here that these were drawn from the Territorial Force, if that is right.

Done.

• drop the hyphen from "regular-army"
• Becasue

Both the above re-worded to eliminate the issues identified.

down to Gallipoli. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• General Hamilton should just be Hamilton at this point

Done.

• is there any explanation of why the proportion of territorial casualties was so high in Egypt, Sinai and Palestine? Were they badly used, was it lack of quality or what?

No info in the source.

Bibliography

• link Charles Bean and James Edward Edmonds via authorlink field

Done.

• per WP:ISBNs, hyphenate them

I can apply arbitrary hyphenation if this is important, but I do not know the proper placement for all publications, and as I understand it, ISBN hyphenation is preferred rather than required.

It is not required (so far as I know), and shouldn't be done arbitrarily, as the placing of the hyphens has meaning. If you ever want to find out where they go, this tool does it for you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I started to change the ISBNs based on this tool, but it generated errors when I previewed. I also note that it can only be used for ISBNs issued in the US or Australia. Given that this is not a requirement for FAC, I'll leave the ISBNs unhyphenated. Factotem (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

• suggest adding campaigns Territorials were involved in under |battles=, eg Western Front, Gallipoli, etc

Done.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. I think I have addressed all issues. In some cases, I've addressed them by pushing back - happy to discuss if you want to challenge those. Factotem (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Nearly there. Just a few remaining queries/doubtful points. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

One minor quibble, but no reason not to support. Well done on the article (and with getting through quite a torrid time with this review). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the time and effort you've given to help out with this. Factotem (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.