Talk:Force in Egypt

List class assessment
G'day, in summary, the reasons for the List rather than CL/BL class assessment are:
 * coverage and accuracy
 * the lead does not reasonably cover the topic, as it doesn't explain that the Force was created from the British garrison when the war commenced, that the threat was initially only from the Germans, that it faced an Ottoman attack in February 1915, or summarise that there were several changes in organisation depending on available forces (including British Empire and French troops) between its creation and merger into the MEF and EEF.
 * the sections do not make sense, the first section is labelled Force in Egypt End of 1914, and the following ones are August 1914 and September 1914. The way the material is laid out is hard to follow as it is not tabulised (which creates problems when numbers of troops are provided) and there are no bullet lists.


 * grammar
 * the text is hard to follow mostly due to abbreviations almost all of which are unexplained. Are "Punjabis" Punjabi Rifles?; what is (T.), Territorials?; "Rajput L.I., Light Infantry?"; other grammatical issues include "Yemen threaten attack"


 * supporting materials
 * the infobox does not enhance the article and so I haven't considered it to be a supporting material. An expanded infobox and/or map of the area would get a tick here.

Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I appreciate your taking the time. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Grammar
Most of the objections in the prior comment seem to be corrected, but some remain.
 * Capitalization. The editor appears to prefer list entries that are not proper nouns to begin with lower case letters. Presumably, to be consistent with that and normal capitalization "French Naval seaplanes", "Garrison railway . . .", "Indian Field Ambulance[s]", 'half company of Sappers and Miners", "a Machine Gun Section". "Anzac", "Territorial battalions"  seem to contain unneeded capitals, but I'm not an expert on British Army formations.


 * Abbreviations: Wireless Section (T.), Detachment RAMC (T.) --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, Lineagegeek, thanks for those tweaks. I agree with pretty much all of them, although "sappers and miners" and "territorial" possibly could be considered proper nouns (as in the Bombay Sappers and Miners and the Territorial Army. I left as is, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)