Wikipedia:Peer review/History of the British Army/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] History of the British Army

I'd like to see it reach featured article status and I'm certain it does need improving -- I'm not quite certain what needs to be done, though (prob' alot of grammatical improvement, knowing my writing skills). It also needs a few more images, especially one of the British Army fighting in formation around 18th/19th Centuries. SoLando 21:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is a good start, but I think the article would have to be larger to make it as a FA. Ideas for improvement . . . 1) most featured articles have photos that alternate left, right. 2) could you define how large a regiment, company, brigade, etc. is?Dinopup 01:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're going to need references and external links, without a doubt. Where did all this info come from? If you don't know, then find sources that confirm the page's content and include those. To me, the article looks acceptably comprehensive, but I'm no history expert. --Spangineer ∞ 04:01, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I added a (brief) Terminology, Further Reading and External Links sections. Thanks to both of you for the advice :-)SoLando 06:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Further Reading section is probably going to get shot down over concerns that the information of the page didn't come from those sources. If it all does, then you will probably want to change the title of the section to references. --Spangineer ∞ 13:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I've changed the title of External Links to References. SoLando 06:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:References and format this accordingly. See military history of the Soviet Union for a very similar article which already is a FA and see how can you make yours similar to that one. And certainly, IIWW deserves a section of its own?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Overall the article looks good, and it covers most of the key topics. The text could use a little cleanup and editing. For example the very first sentence has a period instead of a comma. It also needs running through a spelling checker: "estabsliment", "icnreased", "artcillery", &c. Other possible topics include the British Regimental system, traditions, recruiting methods, and disciple, if those aren't already covered elsewhere. You might want to link in History of England in a "See also" section at the bottom, as this page is missing a huge swath of English military history. — RJH 15:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A few points derived from a mispent youth:

  • Britain was not the dominant military power from 1692. Most historians would say it achieved that status as a consequence of the Napoleonic War.
  • You also need to introduce the British strategic policy that has been in place up till World War 1 of a small professional army, super powerful navy and keeping a balance of power on the continent. Comment about the special factors of being an island nation etc. It is an article on the British army; but you need to mention its relationship with the Royal Navy along the way. Also the fact that we could have a small army often because we funded other countries to have big armies to do our fighting for us.
  • In history books I have always found tables of the army size to particularly interesting. The British army size has waxed and waned with the military situation. Might be useful to have a table for each particular period, with army size at significant times.
  • I think you need to go through the article and make sure you have mention of significant battles and generals throughout its history. A quick look through reveals gaps. Wellington in the Napoleonic War, Montgommery and El Alamain etc. Consider how your article links to other material on Wikipedia.
  • The WW2 section should probably mention that the British army was far behind the Germans at the start of World War 2. We had lost our technological edge which had served the British army well through most of its history.
  • In recent times you probably should mention our comparitive excellence at peacekeeping and anti-terrorism duties. :ChrisG 18:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I had to cut and miss much out (most prominently in the WWI and WWII articles, where there is just a summary, especially in the theatre of operations) as I originally thought it would get too large. I'll try to expand it as soon as I get some time. Could do with some help. Not sure where I go for that, though. I'll also add a few "See Also" links for English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish histories and some other things. Thanks to everyone for all the advice :-) SoLando 20:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it gets two long, split into subarticle. But too short is never too good. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)