Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yeomanry Cavalry

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) 03:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yeomanry Cavalry

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

Featured article candidates/Yeomanry Cavalry/archive1

This article covers an interesting period in the history of the yeomanry, from its formation during the French Revolutionary Wars in 1794 until it was absorbed into the Territorial Force in 1908 shortly before the First World War. During this period, this uniquely aristocratic institution was transformed from a key bastion against civil unrest to amateur cavalry of questionable military value before finding salvation in the failure of the professional British military system in the Second Boer War. I hope my efforts are worthy. Looking forward to comments. Factotem (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Painting titles should be italicized
File:Westminster_cavalry.jpg: possible to provide a more authoritative source?
File:A_Review_of_the_London_Volunteer_Cavalry_and_Flying_Artillery_in_Hyde_Park_in_1804.tif: based on the source, this isn't CC0 but PD due to copyright expiration. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the painting images display the title of the painting in the caption.

Westminster Cavalry: I've found the original source published online, and changed the source URL in Commons to that. Also added source for biographical info of the artist.

Flying Artillery in Hyde Park: I've changed the tag to PD-1923, which satisfies US copyright. There's no explicit publication date in the source, but it does give a date of "ca.1804" and states the creator to be "unknown artist, eighteenth century", so I've added PD-Old, which I'm hoping satisfies UK copyright (assuming, of course that it's a British work. Common sense says it is, but it's not asserted anywhere).

Does this answer your concerns? Factotem (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the image description, A Review of the London Volunteer Cavalry and Flying Artillery in Hyde Park in 1804 is the painting title. Is that not the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that was an arbitrary title applied by Yale, rather than the original title of the work. Seems a bit long, but I'll put it in italics. Factotem (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Have I done enough now, or are there any issues with the images still needing attention? Factotem (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

I looked at this during the Peer Review, and I believe the article meets our standards. Some minor bits:

"particuarly" is mispelt

re-spelt

"datapoints" should be "data points"? (Back then, they would have written it correctly as "datum points")

re-wrote correctly

Should "Autumn" be capitalised?

No, and no longer is

"maintained at vast expense; In peace a charge" Should "In" be capitalised?

Not sure. He's quoting a poem, and "In" was the start of a new line, but it loses that when translated to narrative. I believe we're allowed to make inconsequential, cosmetic changes to quoted text, so I've decapitalised it.

"A commission in the yeomanry's officer corps entailed expenses which, for a troop captain in 1892, was on average £60 per year" Since there is more than one expense, it should be "were on average"?

It should indeed

What is "hair powder duty"?

They used powder to whiten their wigs, so Pitt taxed it so that he could afford to fight the Frenchies. Astonished to find an article on it, so linked now.

Me too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: really nice work, in my opinion. Thanks for your efforts. I have a few comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there is one disambig link, but in this case I feel it is acceptable (no action required)
ext links all work (no action required)
the images lack alt text, and while it isn't a requirement, you might consider adding it as it can be useful to some readers
in the lead, suggest maybe splitting this sentence: Although social status was a significant factor... as it seems a bit too complex
in the lead, it wasn't until a: it is generally best to avoid contractions in formal writing
Royal Gloucestershire Hussars is overlinked
this sentence is slightly awkward: Once prosperous towns that had become de-populated... Suggest maybe rewording as follows: While once prosperous towns that had become de-populated – the so-called rotten and pocket boroughs – were still able to elect Members of Parliament, while major new towns such as Birmingham and Manchester were not represented.
which the 'Gentlemen and Yeomanry Cavalry', as it was then called...: I believe the MOS prefers double quotes
called out ('embodied')... same as above. There are a few other examples in the article elsewhere, also
became in 1967 the Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserve (TA&VR) --> became the Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserve (TA&VR) in 1967?
citation # 148: for consistency, I suggest splitting the explanatory note from the citation here, moving the note to the Footnotes section
Fox is listed in the Bibliography, but does not appear to be specifically cited. Suggest moving it to a Further reading section
in the Bibliography, is there an ISSN or OCLC for the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research?
potentially the article could be added to a couple more categories: Category:Military units and formations established in 1794 and Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1908

Thank you. I've addressed all comments as suggested. Just one thing on the use of quote characters as you've mentioned this in a review of previous articles. I use single quote marks as simple glosses to denote a foreign or strange term. In this article, I've removed all but one instance as they weren't really necessary, but I've left 'new money' in, with single quotes, as this is an unusual term. I believe that's an appropriate usage of single quotes. Factotem (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

Missing years: Beckett pp. 137–138; Hay p. 214; Hay p. 218; Hay pp. 168–170; Mileham p. 106. Otherwise well done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And again, thank you for catching my careless mistakes. Fixed now. Factotem (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Peacemaker67

A few nitpicks:

link food riot in the lead and at first mention in the body (or just the latter)

Is this really necessary? Food riot does not seem to me to offer any great insight, and there is no article on the specific food riots discussed in this article.

a bit more linking is needed for the non-British reader, Birmingham, Manchester, various counties

Done.

were they not subject to military law while embodied outside of an invasion scenario?

Apparently not. The source specifically constrains the application of military law only to service in the event of invasion. Not covered in the article, but members of the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry were put on trial after Peterloo, which tends to suggest that the yeomanry was not subject to military law when called out in support of the civil authorities.

"in the years leading up to the end of the war" which war? Specify and link.

Could be either the French Revolutionary Wars or the Napoleonic War. The source does not make it clear, so I've amended the narrative to say simply "...wars with France"

in what ways did the Volunteer Consolidation Act make service more attractive? Other than avoiding being compelled to serve in the militia?

The Act is covered in more detail in the "Funding, remuneration and terms of service" section. The narrative in the "Early 19th century legislation and decline" which you're questioning here reflects the source, which devotes a half-page paragraph to how corps emphasised the militia exemption in their efforts to recruit and how one person joined the yeomanry specifically to gain the exemption.

suggest "in Manchester attending a rally for parliamentary reform" it currently reads as if they wanted parliamentary reform in Manchester.

Made the same mistake in earlier revisions and thought I had fixed this. How does it look now?

suggest "18 Radicals", as Radical is a proper noun. Also later in Popular perception.

Done

it the "Battle of Bonnymuir" likely to be notable in its own right? Wondering about a redlink. Should it be in quotes?

No. It was little more than a scuffle, and not actually anything resembling a battle. There's no sources that I've seen that would meet notability guidelines for its own article. You're right about the quotes, though, and 'tis done.

perhaps explain where Monmouth and Chepstow are, county-wise. Link?
link Hindon and also where the "Battle of Pythouse" occurred?

Not sure about these. The references to Monmouth, Chepstow and Hindon are in relation to troops of yeomanry, and not the towns. Seems a bit easter-eggish to link them to towns. I've added "In south Wales..." to the sentence which covers the first two, and the Hindon Troop is clearly identified as part of the Wiltshire Yeomanry. Fair?

suggest "In Wales, the Glamorgan Yeomanry..."

Done

suggest "~~the use of~~ force was applied sparingly"

Done

perhaps mention that Fitzhardinge was Member for Bristol?

Done

perhaps mention that Airlie was Scottish? This and the above to show general attitudes across Britain.

Done

link reconnaissance

Done

"brigaded" is military jargon, perhaps a note explaining it per Wiktionary entry for brigade?

Re-worded to "organised into brigades" and linked to Brigade on first mention earlier in the article.

suggest updating "equivalent to £5,988 in 2016" to 2018, and elsewhere, particularly if this is going to FAC soon.

This is an automated function of the Inflation template used to produce the conversions. 2016 appears to be the most recent year for which data is available, and I have no means of controlling it.

"there would be class friction"

Done

"this was after of a gradual shift"?

Done

"military General Staff" seems redundant?

Done

That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Much appreciated. I think I've addressed all points, but let me know if you think I should be doing more. Factotem (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Supporting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 2 June 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.