Talk:15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 12:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

• Given that several aspects of this article are now being disputed by another editor I will be placing this review on hold for a week to get some stability in the article before I start (although the timing of the dispute immediately after the GA review commenced seems instructive to me).

1. By way of explanation of the timing of my interest in this article. The development of this article became known as the brigade is mentioned in other articles. On checking on an article I have up for GAR today, I saw this was also up for GAR. As another article has just been awarded GAR I had some time today to take a closer look. I've only glanced at the infobox and first sentences, but several problems became immediately obvious which I highlighted by adding dubious tags. These tags were cut without any acknowledgement of the problems. So they have been added to the talk page. --Rskp (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Relying heavily on one brigade history has produced a thin and narrow article. Lack of understanding of the context within which the brigade served has produced a misleading infobox. Discussion on the talk page has failed to fix these problems. --Rskp (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly discussed and its only your opinion. Current consensus does not support your concern. Anotherclown (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway what you really mean when you write "...discussion on the talk page has failed to fix these problems..." is that no one has agreed with you. There is a distinct difference. Anotherclown (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Some initial comments though from very briefly skimming the article:
• As an act of parliament "Indian Army Act" should include a date (if available) and be italicised.

Italics added the date would be 1860 but as its not in the source I hesitate to add it. Also the act was changed during the years, 1860 - 1901 - 1911 for the years covering the article.

• A couple of refences are missing place of publishing.

 Done

• Capitalisation is a little off here: Sharma, Gautam (1996). Nationalisation Of The Indian Army (1885–1947). Allied Publishers. ISBN 9788170235552. Fairly sure per title case it should be "Nationalisation of the Indian Army".

 Done

• "British Indian Army Special Service Officers (S.S.O)", fairly sure we abbrev without full stops, i.e. "SSO". See MOS:ABBR.

Yes done I did expect this one to be honest.

Anotherclown (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

All done I believe Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [2] (no action required).
• Linkrot: external links check out [3] (no action required).
• Alt text: Images all have alt text [4] (no action required).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues [5] (no action required).
• Duplicate links: No duplicates (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • This could probably be more exact: "The 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade also known as the Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade, was a brigade-sized formation that served alongside British Empire forces in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, during the First World War." Specifically the "also known" part. My understanding is that it was originally formed as the Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade so the lead could possibly be re-worked to make that more clear. For example:
    • "The 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade was a brigade-sized formation that served alongside British Empire forces in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, during the First World War. Originally formed as the Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade, it was formed from Imperial Service Troops provided by the Indian Princely States of Hyderabad, Mysore, Patiala and Jodhpur, which each provided a cavalry regiment. A maximum of three regiments served in the brigade at any one time. The states of Bhavnagar, Kashmir, Kathiawar and Idar provided smaller detachments for the brigade, which was at times reinforced by other British Empire regiments and artillery batteries when on operations." Or something similar.
      • Changed text
  • This seems a little awkward to me: "In 1888, the Indian government proposed that the independent armies of the Indian Princely states provide troops for the British Empire for service on the North West Frontier and outside the Indian subcontinent." Consider instead: "In 1888, the Indian government proposed that the independent armies of the Indian Princely states provide the British Empire with troops for service on the North West Frontier and outside the Indian subcontinent."
    • Agreed changed text
  • This could probably also be tightened: "...the Indian Government appointed a staff of officers designated Military Advisers and Assistant Military Advisers to assist the independent states' rulers in training and the organisation of their forces." Consider instead: "...the Indian Government appointed a staff of officers designated Military Advisers and Assistant Military Advisers to assist the independent states' rulers in the training and organisation of their forces."
    • Changed text
  • "Imperial Service Troops were commanded by Indian officers. In contrast, British Indian Army units had British officers in all senior command posts; their own Indian Viceroy's commissioned officers were trained to only a troop or platoon level of command." The distinction between Imperial Service Troops and British Indian Army might be made to better effect if you switched this around. Consider instead: "Wheras British Indian Army units had British officers in all senior command posts and their own Indian Viceroy's commissioned officers were trained to only a troop or platoon level of command, in contrast Imperial Service Troops were commanded by Indian officers." (this is a suggestion only - its ok as it was).
    • Left as is
  • Inconsistent presentation of "Indian Government", sometimes you write "Indian government".
    • Changed to upper case
  • Is there a word missing here or punctuation? "The Kathiawar Imperial Service Signal Troop, commanded by Captain Henry St. George Scott 4th Gurkha Rifles...", specifically between "Scott" and "4th Gurkha Rifles".
    • Yes changed text
  • Same here: "...commanded by Captain T O'Leary Indian Army Medical Corps..."
    • Changed text
  • Some inconsistency in the presentation of numbers: for instance "seven officers and forty-seven men", but then "thirty-two officers (one British) and 487 other ranks" (and many other instances). Unless I'm missing something generally figures over ten should be writen in digits (i.e. 10), see WP:MOSNUM.
    • As I understand WP:ORDINAL, it considers three separate cases;

1. numbers from zero to nine, which are normally spelled out in words
2. numbers greater than nine that would require more than two words to spell out; these are normally rendered in numerals
3. numbers that are greater than nine that would only need one or two words to spell out; these can be either spelled out in words or rendered as numerals.

No worries the policy is a little greyer than I thought. If you're happy with it I am too (I just follow the numbers greater than 9 use digits rule - the military mind craves consistency)! Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• • "...by amalgamating the three cavalry regiments machine gun sections into one unit...", should be: "...by amalgamating the three cavalry regiment's machine gun sections into one unit..."
    • Changed
  • This doesn't seem quite right to me: "Even though this was an Imperial Service unit...", consider instead: "Even though the brigade was an Imperial Service unit..."
    • Changed text
  • Not possessive: "but only as advisor's", should be: "but only as advisors"
    • Changed text
  • Should "Regimentdar B Chamraj Urs Bahadur" be "Regimentdar B. Chamraj Urs Bahadur", with a period placed after the "B". I'm assuming this is an abbreviation of his first name? If so there are a couple of other examples of this.
    • Changed . added
      • Not sure about this its
  • This seems a little awkward to me: "Between 27 and 29 October the brigade moved to Bombay for embarkation; six transport ships carrying most of the brigade sailed on 1 November and a seventh ship carrying two squadrons of Mysore Lancers remained behind with mechanical problems and finally set sail a fortnight later." Consider perhaps: "Between 27 and 29 October the brigade moved to Bombay for embarkation; six transport ships carrying most of the brigade sailed on 1 November, while a seventh ship carrying two squadrons of Mysore Lancers remained behind with mechanical problems and finally set sail a fortnight later."
    • Changed
  • Terminology here: "The main part of the brigade...", consider instead: "The main body of the brigade..."
    • Changed
  • Is this right: "under command of General Head Quarters...", my dictionary says headquarters is one word?
    • So does mine changed
  • "The Bikaner Camel Corps, another Imperial Service unit, was attached to the brigade at Ismailia for administrative purposes, and was not operationally attached." Consider instead: "The Bikaner Camel Corps, another Imperial Service unit, was attached to the brigade at Ismailia for administrative purposes, but was not operationally attached." (minor nitpick - suggestion only)
    • No reads better so changed
  • "The other British forces defending the canal were more static infantry formations, comprising the 42nd (East Lancashire), the 10th Indian and the 11th Indian Divisions...", this might be worded more economically like this: "The other British forces defending the canal were more static infantry formations, comprising the 42nd (East Lancashire), and the 10th and 11th Indian Divisions..."
    • Changed
  • This is also a little awkwardly worded for mine: "The attempt failed and on 4 February the brigade with infantry support moved into the Sinai." Consider: "The attempt failed and on 4 February the brigade moved into the Sinai with infantry support."
    • Changed
  • "The brigade's next action was on 22 March when two Hyderabad Lancers squadrons..." → "The brigade's next action was on 22 March when two squadrons of Hyderabad Lancers..."
    • Changed
  • Should "lancers" be capitalised here: "it had been intended that the lancers..."?
    • Changed
  • "...and a newer version of Lee-Enfield Rifles...", consider instead: "...and a newer version of the Lee-Enfield Rifle..."
    • Changed
  • This should be possessive: "By 13:00 the brigade was north of Gaza when the Mysore Lancers leading squadron...", i.e. "Mysore Lancer's leading sqauadron..."
    • Changed
  • "Lancers" should probably be capitalised here: "...the rest of the lancers attacked, capturing the Wadi Safieh line."
    • Changed
  • And here: "The lancers, still under artillery fire..."
    • Changed
  • Some inconsistency in use of "machine gun" and "machine-gun", either is acceptable.
    • Caught two changed to machine-gun
  • "capturing two artillery guns" or "artillery pieces" (minor nitpick - suggestion only)
    • Yes as we both know pieces is correct - I was thinking of the less military knowledgeable, who may think it was wrong.
      • No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Multiple issues here: "In early January, the brigade trained and re-equipped, which included the first issue of bayonets to the lancers." Consider instead: "In early January 1918, the brigade trained and re-equipped, which included the first issue of bayonets to the Lancers."
    • Changed
  • "On 11 May, the Jodhpur Lancer were assigned..." → "On 11 May, the Jodhpur Lancers were assigned..."
    • Changed
  • Capitalisation here: "The lancers charged towards the railway line, but the terrain forced them to move to their left into a wadi, which was impassable and forced the lancers even further left."
    • Changed
  • "The squadron mounted and charged those Turkish positions...", consider instead: "The squadron mounted and charged the Turkish positions..."
    • Changed
  • Missing word here: "...and 11:00 the brigade resumed their advance."
    • Changed
  • Punctuation here: "...responsible for guarding their own and the Australian Mounted Divisions transport columns." Should be "...responsible for guarding their own and the Australian Mounted Division's transport columns."
    • Changed
  • Some commas missing here I think: "The next day 2 October was the day that British Empire forces officially entered Damascus."
    • Added
  • "...the brigade advance did not resume until 05:30 5 October." Consider instead: "...the brigade advance did not resume until 05:30 on 5 October."
    • Changed
  • Several issues here: "The next day Lieutenant-Colonel Holden a SSO with the Jodhpur Lancers became the..." Firstly there needs to be commas between Holden and Lancers → "The next day Lieutenant-Colonel Holden, a SSO with the Jodhpur Lancers, became the...". Also do we know Holden's first name? If so it should be added.
    • Changed name was Hyla Napier Holden
  • "Brigadier Harbord ordered an immediate brigade attack...", should just be "Harbord ordered an immediate brigade attack...", removing rank after formal introduction per WP:SURNAME.
    • Changed
  • Capitalisation here: "At 12:00 the lancers charged the Turkish position..."
    • Changed
  • "...including Lieutenant-Colonel Holden SSO attached to the Jodhpur Lancers...", consider instead: "including Holden..." per WP:SURNAME
    • Changed
  • I think bullets should probably be used in the lists in the "Formation" section.
    • Changed

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All major points cited using WP:RS.
  • HMSO 1920 accepted as a reliable source given current community consensus here [6] and here [7].
  • Although the article relies quite heavily on the HMSO 1920 source as the unit history it seems logical to do so, and it would likely be one of the more detailed sources available on the subject despite its age.
  • Consistent citation style used throughout.
  • No issues with OR.
  • Some issues with the presentation of references:
    • These need to use title case
      • Preston, Richard Martin (1921). The Desert Mounted Corps: an account of the cavalry operations in Palestine and Syria, 1917-1918. London: Constable and Company Limited. ISBN 9781146758833.
      • Punja, Shobita (1990). An illustrated guide to museums of India. Michigan: Guidebook Company Ltd. ISBN 9789622171435.
    • "Ltd" should not be used, i.e "Guidebook Company Ltd" should just be "Guidebook Company".
    • You should use the "volume" and "series" fields in the cite templates as they are currently not presented correctly (examples include Duckers, Gudmundsson, Roy and Sumner).
      • Changes made
  • Could references be added to the "Commanders" and "Units attached" sections? Anotherclown (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • These are done now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
  • This brief sentence could probably have more detail added: "With the war over, the brigade returned to India and was disbanded." Specifically do we know when they returned?
    • Unfortunately not its not mentioned in any source, the nearest thing I could find was that two of the divisions brigades (unnamed) remained for a short time in Syria in a police role. I have just located in the National Archives the brigade headquarters page dated 1918 July - 1919 November that would suggest it at least existed to then. But is that enough to say it was disbanded then? [8]
      • No I agree we shouldn't speculate. Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "...and the regiment's part in its capture was recognised by the British government, which awarded them the battle honour Megiddo...", which regiment?
    • It was both of them so changed
  • One additional point here: you list the strength of each component of the brigade in the text, which is fine and state that it was made up of three regiments each of four squadrons. I wonder if it would be helpful to our readers if the rough overall establishment of the entire brigade (and also include this in the infobox)? Save them having to add up the totals. Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Total added to inf box

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • Overall I see no major issues here, although use of the word "Turkish" has been challenged by another editor with preference for use of "Ottoman" instead. Given that "Turkish" is used in numerous reliable sources I personnally see that either term could be used interchangably as long as its done with internal consistancy. Regardless this issue is currently under discussion on the talk page and as this review is on hold we can afford to wait to see if some consensus develops.
  • Words like "enemy" can be problematic and are easily avoided. For instance "By the end of 1914, no contact had been made with any enemy forces." Consider instead "By the end of 1914, no contact had been made with Turkish forces."
    • Changed
  • Probably also best to watch "Turk" which is used in a number of places. Could also easily be replaced to avoid any concerns here.
    • Think I have caught and changed them all
      • Yep got them all I think - its more that as a colloquial abbreviation its seems a little "iffy" to me thats all. Probably best to avoid. Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • Some elements of the article are currently in dispute. Edits will be monitored whilst the review is on hold.
    • Despite some initial concerns the article appears to be stable. Anotherclown (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images used appear to be in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.
  • File:Group of Imperial Service Troops.jpg might need a PD-US tag, not sure though.
    • Not sure either but added one anyway

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Overall this article seems quite good to me, although there are a few issues to resolve IRT prose, grammer and MOS. The review remains on hold for 7 days to allow the issues currently in dispute to be discussed. Anotherclown (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • All done I believe. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Looking good so far. I'm going to have another read just to make sure I didn't miss anything. Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I've completed a copy edit and made a couple of tweaks to the Infobox (mainly presentation). I also changed the "Aftermath" section to "Disbandment". If you disagree with any of these edits pls revert.
        • I've marked a few sections complete now, a couple still need to be addressed though. Pls have a look above.

Couple of final suggestions:

• Seperate the formation section into seperate second level sections for "Order of battle" (to include the "units attached" and "units assigned") and "Commanders".
• Add dates to these sections for each units assignment/attachment. Anotherclown (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • In my opinion the article in its current state now meets the GA criteria so I'm passing it. The review has remained on hold for 5 days which seems more than sufficient. Anotherclown (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)