Talk:Horses in World War I/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: NVO (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that I look at the events from an Eastern Front perspective, and with a somewhat "more personal than normal" attitude - one of my grandfathers was an artillery horse groom during the Kerensky Offensive and when he recalled the events he swore like ... a horse groom. So I normally skipped detailed examination of British history unless there was a glaring - error? misrepresented fact? misunderstood or awkwardly worded statements? There are too many of them for a GA, even limited to Western Front. I suspect that most of these stem from using quaternary (encyclopedias) and tertiary (broad topic books like Cavalry or Military History) sources without checking secondary sources (i.e. studies of military operations).

Lead. Lead reads and looks like a haphazard collection of conflicting and incomplete statements. Some glaring statements that need attention:
 * Emphasis on cavalry troops (first) over logistics (second) and overestimation of mechanization attained during World War One (even if limited to France). Opening statements like "During World War I (1914-1918), horse-mounted cavalry units were initially considered essential elements of military force but over the course of the war, the perceived value of the horse in war changed dramatically.." lure the reader into thinking that by 1918 horse was obsolete. Then the reader screams in disbelief: if "The traditional functions of cavalry were replaced by mechanized armored divisions" in 1918 how come the almighty Wehrmacht enter World War Two on foot with horse-drawn artillery, their foot infantry lagging weeks and months behind their panzers? The sobering statement on the significance of horse logistics is hidden two paragraphs below. It should be closer, in the same paragraph.
 * Moved one sentence on the importance on horses in logistics up, although most of it remains in the third paragraph to maintain symmetry with the article. As for the rest of the comment, the value of the horse in war did change dramatically and many functions previously performed by horses were taken over by mechanization. I'm sorry that you believe it makes the reader "[scream] in disbelief", but that is what multiple sources I have consulted say, and unless you have a source that backs up your assertion, it will stay the way it is. As for why the Wehrmacht entered the war on horses and foot, I have no idea...but it really plays no part in what the sources say abou the changing role of horses in World War I.
 * I might add to Dana's that the significant thing here was the decline of cavalry, which is not the same as mounted infantry. "Get there on horseback... take the horses to the rear" is not cavalry warfare (Maybe the Russian manual's word translates as "cavalry" but the English sense of the term is actually fighting from horseback). Dragoons and Infantry, even if horse-mounted were not cavalry.  Even before mechanization did in cavalry, the machine gun certainly didn't help...weaponry had been a huge problem for cavalry since the development of the old Gatling gun...FWIW, the toll of horse deaths in the US Civil War and even in Crimea pretty much foretold what became painfully obvious in WWI.  Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that the "traditional functions of cavalry" in the quoted paragraph are understood as "charge of the light brigade"-style blitzes - these, indeed, bordered with lunacy in 1918 just as they did in 1854. But I am puzzled by the fact that the traditional role of cavalry as mounted (mobile) infantry has been reduced to a British specialty. The other belligerents had their own dragoon forces, didn't they? The Russian rule book for cavalry clearly concentrated on foot action. The Don Cossacks mentioned below were trained for foot action: get there on horseback, dig the trench, take horses to the rear... Check the sources.
 * I have checked my sources, and the article reflects what they say. I have yet to see such a thing as a "Russian rule book on cavalry", but I will tweak the Cossack sentences to show that they were not completely wiped out, per the comment below.
 * Tweaked.


 * "Germany and Austria-Hungary stopped using mounted forces soon after the beginning of the war" - true for the Western Front alone. Elsewhere, their cavalry persisted. See the sources on the Sventiany Offensive - a pure cavalry operation. And how did the Germans occupy half of Russian in the end of 1917? control over railroads and a few divisions of uhlans.
 * Specified Western Front.


 * "Horses could travel in mud and on terrain where mechanized vehicles could not" - railroads did not bother about mud, only terrain and artillery fire. Railroads were the mechanization of World War One. Another example of overestimating mechanization - trucks were still too few and too unreliable even in France.
 * Again, just relating what the sources say. Please remember, if necessary, that Wikipedia asks for verifiability, not what each individual editor believes without being able to provide sources.
 * Also note that railroads couldn't go right up to the trenches. Stuff had to get from the railhead to the front somehow...   Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's what the War Department Light Railways and Decauvilles were for (printed sources)... a forgotten world of trench mechanization of the Western Front.
 * As to your other concerns, I'd prefer to rewrite the text offline, with detailed referenced coverage of the contentious issues, then post it on the talk page (it will go into more detail than appropriate for the topic). I am, however, puzzled by the refusal to pick up an online book (any book on the subject, the storyline of Tannenberg or Verdun is always the same) or the suggestion to source a talk page statement like "Army commanders don't lead squadrons". They just don't. NVO (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were some areas where trains could go right up to the front. There were other areas, however, where they could not. You will notice that nowhere in the article does it say that horses were used in all areas or battles to replace trains - just some areas (and I have made a few tweaks to ensure that this is explicit). Horses were used in some areas to replace trains when mud, destroyed tracks, etc, prevented trains from running. I'm not sure where either of us has refused to read a book, or where on the talk page it was asked to source anything - the talk page is actually rather bare... Also, as a reviewer, please remember that you are barred from making "significant contributions" to an article that you are reviewing - in that case, you need to withdraw your reviewer status. This comment is only in reply to your statement that you will rewrite text offline and then post it, as so far you have made no edits to the article or talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "with horses killed by bombs" - recommend replacing with "artillery fire" or perhaps "shrapnel" (modern reader will read "bombs" as "air raids" - in 1918 these were a minor nuisance).
 * Replaced with "artillery fire".


 * "two and a half million more being treated at veterinary hospitals" - discussed in "Casualties".
 * Removed, per discussion below.


 * "Russia also used some cavalry forces" - replace "some" with numbers. Russia had 24 cavalry divisions and 8 brigades (around 200,000 men) at the onset of WW1, not including Cossack troops. By October 1917 it increased to 10 corps, 47 divisions, 9 brigades (although I suspect some were on paper only, others demoralized).
 * Sources?
 * I have removed the "some" so that the sentence flows better, but please note that specific numbers belong in the body, not the lead. The source that I have been able to find claims that Russia entered the war with 36 cavalry divisions, a fact which is presented in the Continental Europe section. Please provide me with your source for the numbers above.


 * "and their specialist cavalry unit of Don Cossacks was completely destroyed in a single battle with the Germans" - specialist in what? which battle? Gumbinnen? Stallupponnen? Tannenberg? Śwentiany? what unit (company? regiment? numbers please). Again, the reader screams in disbelief: the phrase, as presented, makes an impression that all Don Cossacks perished while in fact they persisted as a force through WW1 and Civil War and survived post-war slaughter (yours truly is 1/4 Don and 1/4 Kuban cossack by blood). Numbers below.
 * Will check on this tomorrow.
 * Removed detail in the lead, but did some clarifying in the body. The unit was the special guard of Samsonov. Specified Tannenberg; although the source does not specify, it gives enough clues that I believe this is the battle it is talking about. I would also protest that the phrase presented the impression that all Don Cossacks had perished - a "specialist unit" is not the same as "all". It has been clarified, however. Dana boomer (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cavalry:
 * "even late in the war, mounted cavalry were used" - ?! Mounted infantry, perhaps?
 * Changed to just "cavalry", as this is what the source says.


 * "sometimes pitting men on horses against tanks" - ?! The source does not mention "pitting men against tanks" and why would Canadian cavalry attack British tanks (The Mark Tank outline is quite unique)? At any rate, I would strongly discourage use of paintings as sources on war tactics. Drop it. Remember that German photo-op from 1939 that spun a legend about Polish cavalry poking panzers with spears?
 * Tweaked a bit, to "sometimes using both horses and tanks in the same battle." Also, I am not using a painting as a souce. I am using the Canadian War Museum as a source, and they happened to append the information to the description of a painting.

Cavalry - Continental Europe
 * East Prussia campaign. Wrong example - it was not a cavalry operation. The passage on East Prussia in whole ("Russian government claimed that its horsemen would thrust deep into the heart of Germany. Although the troops did begin penetration into Germany, they were soon destroyed by German forces. Troops led by German Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and Lieutenant-General Erich Ludendorff surrounded the Russian Second Army and destroyed the mounted force of Don Cossacks led by Russian General Alexander Samsonov") is misleading at best. May I recommend that, instead of citing Cavalry or Horses you also take a look at specialty sources on 1914, specifically, East Prussia. Check absolute numbers of the forces involved and lost - these details are washed up when data is aggregated on a larger scale, causing misunderstanding.
 * Do you have a suggestion for sources? I have found no information on detailed force numbers.


 * For the record, at the onset of East Prussian campaign Samsonov's First Army had the 4-th, 6-th, 22-nd, 35-th and the 40th Don Cossack regiments. Rennenkampf's Second Army had the 31-st, 34-th, 44-th, 46-th Don Cossack regiments and a few separate companies. Nine out of sixty Don Cossack regiments. Both armies were routed, but none of their commanders (Samsonov, Rennenkampf and their superior Zhilinsky) led Cossacks. Army commanders don't lead reconnaisance screens in person. Also note that although these nine regiments were lost as combat-worthy units, a good deal of their men and horses came back.
 * Again, I have not been able to find sources on this information.


 * Don Cossacks comprised a minority of Russian cavalry engaged in East Prussia, cavalry was a minority of the total force engaged (reaching half a million). East Prussian campaign was an infantry offensive, and could not be otherwise - bogs, sands and the Mazurian lakes rule out any hopes of blietzkrieg. An important battle but not in the history of cavalry. Seriously, I recommend studying the Sventiany Offensive in more detail.
 * Again, sources?
 * We can't add any of the above if we can't get a footnote for this stuff, NVO. Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Logistical support
 * "During World War I, mules were used to pull ammunition wagons" - curious, which nations other than Brits used sizable numbers of mules, apart from mountain troops? is it another British specialty?
 * I don't know. I'm just following what the sources describe.
 * Probably anyone who could, mules were tougher that horses for that sort of work. But Dana has the sources.   Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Procurement - Central powers
 * "over 375,000 horses were lost from German-occupied French territory during the war." - lost, that is gained, right? Leave "lost" to the Französen-pedia. :))
 * Replaced with "taken"


 * "The Germans sold their captured horses at auction. And then they ran out of horses." - they captured horses to fight war and then sold them at auction (to whom?) and then ran out of horses? Do you see a lapse of logic here?
 * I changed it to "auctioned some horses". However, this is what the sources say, and unless you have sources that prove this wasn't the case, it will have to stand.


 * "Germans ran out of horses - a major factor in their loss of the war." - please check the validity of this statement against RS on WW1 and politics of the period.
 * Again, do you have sources that say this wasn't true? However, changed to "contributing factor."

Casualties
 * "on average, Britain lost around 15 percent (of the initial stock) of their animals each year of the war." - please clarify, 15 percent of total national stock or only the military stock? Logic says it's the latter but the number seems to be too low. Are you confident that Singleton applied the same metric to all campaigns?
 * Source says the initial military stock. I am confident of Singleton's research and reporting methods; is there any reason not to be?


 * "British rationed hay and oats, although their horses still ate more than those from France or Italy" - is it due to breed physique alone, or the feeding habits too?
 * Changed - they were issued more, I'm sure French and Italian horses would have loved to have eaten more :)


 * "horse fodder was the single largest commodity shipped to the front by some countries." - which countries?
 * I don't know, this wasn't present in the source.
 * Given weight, probably everyone that used horses. Horses can eat up to 25-30 pound of fodder a day, draft breeds even more...40 to 50 lbs.  Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "restricting supplies of oats from North America, combined with poor Italian harvests." - it would be nice to see actual data who contributed what; were Italian shipments of any importance? Just how important?
 * It would be nice information to see, but this was not in the ref and I didn't find information on this anywhere else.


 * "gas masks were improvised for the horses" - this looks like a factory product, not a field improvization (neither is this late American entry).
 * Re-checked original source and reworded, added in the two refs above. Thank you for providing those.


 * - is this RS, really? "Chris has written all the content for the site from his in-depth knowledge of History having taught History and Politics at a major secondary school in England for the last 26 years"... Looks like "a wiki that only one person can edit" to me.
 * Removed information provided by this source, and reworded lead to account for the removed information.

Suggestions.
 * Some of the issues raised above could be solved with a simple table: number of cavalrymen and number of horses by belligerent nation, in 1914 and in 1918. Draw it if not for the article but for your own reference.
 * The sources I have found do not give exact numbers for many of the countries.
 * Also, note that article emphasized that cavalry not as critical as the horses used for logistical support. Also note that mounted infantry, dragoons and whatever are not quite the same as cavalry, so numbers may be midleading if we have to glean them from various sources.   Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dig deeper, check sources on individual campaigns and operations. The Eastern Prussian operations discussed above has been researched in and out by all sides. Understand that the best encyclopedias are quaternary sources ("twice removed", literally) that omit many relevant details.
 * Do you have a list of the reliable sources that have discussed this?


 * Study and expand French, German and Austrian sections. Note that the French and German cavalry tactics in 1914 were radically different.
 * As I say below, I have tried to find sources that give this information, but have been unsuccessful. I will be leaving a note with another equine editor who has a fairly good collection of books on the uses of horse in warfare throughout history, so she may be able to help with this. Please see my note below on comprehensiveness vs. broadness.
 * NVO, here we are looking at a GA, this may be asking a bit much...?  Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Horse as food for humans - perhaps worth examining too.
 * I did a further search on this, since I hadn't even thought about it before, and I can't find any sources that describe any special amounts of horse meat eaten by people during WWI. Horse meat is of course prevalent as a food throughout Europe and other parts of the world even today, and I'm sure they were eating it at that point, but it wasn't anything special. I found a few articles about WWII, but nothing about WWI. A lot of what I found about Brits, Aussies and Americans was about how fond they were of their horses, leading to an assumption (by myself, so not sourceable), that they would for the most part have chosen to starve rather than eat their pets/companions/friends. If you have any further sources on this, I would love to include them.
 * I might add that most people who worked directly with the animals were not going to find eating them to be desirable, but on the other hand warfare in general, throughout time, horses that were wounded or unusable often wound up in the pot. Armies on foot also were about as willing to take farmers' horses for food as for logistics, depending on the nature of the supply line.  In other words, not sure what we really CAN add here, and very tough to find sources on this, even when common, it was kind of a dirty little secret.    Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Regards, NVO (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi NVO, and thanks for your review. My day today is a bit busy, so it will be this evening before I can begin work on your comments, but please know that I am thinking about them and not ignoring the review :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have answered several of the points above, and a lot of them keep coming back to the same issue - a lack of sources. I have dug fairly deeply in online sources, my own library and the public and university libraries available to me, and have added all of the pertinent information that I found to this article. There is very little information on the equine use of Germany, Russia, Italy, France, etc - it is fairly concentrated on the English-speaking world and I counted myself lucky to be able to find what I did. Also, I think you may be confusing the FA concept of "comprehensiveness" with the GA concept of "broadness" - the good article criteria say "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." Dana boomer (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now I am putting together Horses in WW2, and there seems to be plenty of sources on all theaters except China. This book on WW2 might be helpful for WW1 too, as it describes horse logistics in plain language. NVO (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that, from what I can see, it deals specifically with the time period after WWI (1930-1945). Interpreting information written as an analysis of World War II to also be an analysis of World War I screams of original research, unless the book specifically says something like "as was also the case in WWI", which I didn't see in my limited preview of the book. I will work on more of your comments tomorrow, but for many of the issues I believe you to be asking for information you think is out there, rather than that you know can be sourced to reliable sources. Dana boomer (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi NVO and thank you for your willingness to edit this article for GA. Per material in Horses in World War II and research we have for Horses in warfare, it must be noted that it is a lot easier to find sources on WWII in general than for WWI.  Horse info, however, is tricky to find anywhere, I am actually quite pleased with what Dana WAS able to locate.  I don't quite know why there is more stuff on WWII than WWI, but possibly just recency or perhaps an overall greater emphasis on recordkeeping and scientific study during the war, hard to say what's up with that.  Montanabw (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources Hi NVO, sorry to have butted in on Dana's GA, I have not been actively editing this article all that much, more wordsmithing, Dana has the source material and is the lead here. So the substantive changes have to be per her time and energy, not mine. I do think it important, however, to distinguish between GA and FA criteria. I fear you are making the perfect into the enemy of the good. Where we are just flat-out wrong, help us get it right, but where we are not detailed enough or have oversimplified, that's for FA. Montanabw (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing that keeps occurring on all the "horses in...war" articles though, is that they are about HORSES first, then military history, and thus the authors knowledgeable about horses are not always military historians. (or vice-versa) All I'm saying is that it sounds like you have knowledge of useful specific source material, and if so, it would be ever so kind of you to share some links; we each can pull one of 50 or more horse books off our shelves, but we're light on Verdun and it's tough to make it to the library every day for three hours of research. To the extent that minor things are "just wrong and everyone knows it" I'm personally not sympathetic -- at WPEQ, we are still getting "fact" tags when we make such statements in our horse articles, and we've cited almost every word in Glossary of equestrian terms because so many people want to argue with us over what we consider the blatently obvious. So, even if all you can do is refer us to "military terminology for dummies" for the simple stuff, that is, per WP:V a source! (smile) Montanabw (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

To all: I'm busy and mostly offline in RL in February - must live through yet another corporate merger. As Dana suggested, reviewing an article and major editing don't go together well. I'd rather step down from reviewing and upload the data already collected. User:Abraham,_B.S. said he wanted to review it, too - perhaps if he still does, he can take the lead now, and this review be downgraded to a talk page section? NVO (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If Abraham would like to take over the review, that is fine with me, or I have a couple of other frequent reviewers that I can ping if he is too busy. The review begun by NVO can stay here - it is part of the GA review, and the next reviewer's comments can simply be appended to this page. NVO, please upload your thoughts on expansion/sources to the talk page, as other editors have been doing. This article is already growing steadily, and we are working hard to keep non-essential information out of it. The article may actually need a combing right now for non-essential information that snuck in when I was editing late at night and perhaps not paying the greatest amount of attention to what I was adding... :) Thanks for your help so far, and good luck in RL. Dana boomer (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If I can put in a plea: Can all reveiwers please remember three things:  1)  We are shooting for GA, not FA.  2)  This article is about HORSES in WWI, not cavalry, not dragoons, not mounted infantry, not weapons, but the critters themselves (passing references to all of the above certainly OK but not the focus here...)  3)  We are beating our heads against the wall to provide geographical balance, but we are getting criticism both that there's not enough on Britain, then others saying the article is too English-focused.  Dana is plugging away gamely, but I'm fearing that we just can't win.  Just help us from an NPOV that is based on the GA status, we'd be glad to add what is actually needed here.  Mucho Thanks.   Montanabw (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Taking the above into account may i ask, if we have more context on the charge that was made at Arras (in the British section), could it please be added; it would add an extra bit of deapth and understanding to why exactly so many men and horses were slaughtered.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right before the sentence that states 2/3 of the Hussars were lost is the reason they were lost - they charged into "heavy machine gun fire and barbed wire". This is a very, very bad idea, and since the Brits were prone to doing this over and over again during the war, they lost lots of men and horses. There's not much else to say on that charge, especially since all added context would do would be to add repetition of the fact that some cavalries thought it was a good idea to charge into an area laced with barbed wire and covered by machine gun fire, which, obviously, it wasn't, and this is covered in depth in the article: in the British section, the overview to the Cavalry section and in the casualties section. Dana boomer (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only question this exchange raises in my mind is if readers unfamiliar with horses might not realize that it is blatently obvious that charging horses into barbed wire and machine gun fire was extraordinarily poor thinking? Do non-horse people need an explanation of why barbed wire and horses are a bad mix??  I mean it's blatently obvious to me too, but I'm into horses... :-)    Montanabw (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, I'd say that's pretty much blatantly obvious why any living thing mixed with barbed wire/machine gun fire just doesn't make any sense. Courcelles (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you still need a new reviewer here, I'm willing to pick this up de novo and run with it. Courcelles (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We would love to have a new reviewer!! I look forward to your comments, and will do my best to resolve them in a timely manner. Dana boomer (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. I worked on this some last evening, and hope to have my "list" for you tonight U.S. time. Courcelles (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Review
I'm not the specialist your first reviewer was; in fact military history is more a passing interest for me; so I'll recommend running this through a WP:MILHIST A-class review before going for FAC so they can get your ducks in a row in that area. That said, FAC reviewers are more like me than specialists, so I hope this will be helpful.


 * I hate the template; so these are my comments... I can throw a template in here when it comes to decision time if you want.
 * No need for a template if you don't like them. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really a GA criterion, but FAC will make you fix it, so let's fix it now; there's seven links to disambiguation pages here; 1st Cavalry Brigade, Battle of Megiddo, Frederick Harvey (redirects to a disamb page), Groom, Lord Kitchener, National Army, and Ordnance.


 * I fixed the ones I could fix, the others need Dana to select the proper article... I couldn't find a British 1st Cavalry for WWI, but an Aussie Light horse one. There appears to be no wiki article on Lieutenant Harvey, though maybe I missed something.  There are two possible Lord Kitcheners, not sure the right one, Henry Kitchener, 2nd Earl Kitchener and Horatio Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener.  the ordnance link probably needs to go to the wiktionary entry, I suspect, based on the disambig page...--MTBW
 * Is Lt. Harvey this fellow? Courcelles (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think these have all been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great Courcelles (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All links resolve fine.


 * First section; "Even late in the war, cavalry were used." Is this a complete sentence?  I'm not sure "cavalry were" is correct- should this be "cavalry was"; the tense used in the prior paragraph?  Consider merging this sentence and the one after it.


 * A quick glance in my dictionary said "usually used as plural." This issue can probably be resolved with a couple of additional dictionary checks.  I tweaked the phrasing of the sentence in question, hope that worked?   Montanabw (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a complete sentence, as "Cavalry were used late in the war" would be a complete sentence, and the current wording is just a remixing of that. Dana boomer (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "On September 7, Campbell's troops charged again, but this time toward the German 1st Guard Dragoons, another lancer cavalry regiment.[9]" What was the result of this engagement?  Your next sentence moves on to another topic.


 * "Another example was General Sordet, who was accused of not letting horses have access to water in hot weather." Needs a citation.  Further, if this person ever got an article, it wouldn't be at "General Sordet", so please change the redlink to his name.


 * I have previously searched high and low for an article in wiki on General Sordet, there is none. Sordet is mentioned in passing in a couple other articles, but no article on him.  --MTBW
 * I haven't been able to even find out what the general's first name was, so "General Sordet" is the best I can do for a wikilink, unless you think it would be best to just unlink completely. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Naah; that redlink is better than none. Surprising how little can exist on some flag officers from WWI- I remember from history classes in college! 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I at least found his first name and a source where his overall incompetence is discussed. Acutally, he had one commanding officer even more incompetent, so perhaps he did have the argument that he was just following orders. Will add shortly, still a red link but now easier for someone who cares to create the article about him, should they so choose. Of interest, I can't even find a bio on him in French wiki. Montanabw (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Russia possessed thirty-six cavalry divisions when it entered the war in 1914, and the Russian government claimed that its horsemen would thrust deep into the heart of Germany." Citation?


 * Not really sure this is a problem, but a lot of sentences begin with "However", "But" and similar.
 * I went through and removed several of these - hopefully it helped? Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "In May 1917, a month after the US declaration of war, the National Defense Act went into effect, creating the 18th through the 25th US Cavalry regiments. On May 18, twenty more cavalry regiments were created." I assume this was all during May 1917?  It's not the clearest from the text.
 * Yes, same year. I have tweaked this to hopefully make this clearer. In the process I have removed the reference to the exact day, but I think they may be too much detail anyway. Dana boomer (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the sections by country; why is there no section on the Ottoman Empire?


 * "The English cavalry officer, Lt Col RMP Preston DSO" Wikilink DSO, as that is a title you've not used before.  I'm not sure an article about a LTC would be sustainable, so you likely don't need to link him personally.
 * Linked. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Logistical Support section; since this is where you mention the recruitment posters, should that image be down here, and another one chosen for the lead? I have no real opinion on this, but it's worth thinking about.


 * We had a photo of some Australian forces there originally, I don't know why it was switched out, but possibly due to copyright problems. We have a LOT of problems finding good images with the right licensing.  =:-O  I'll defer to Dana on that.  --MTBW
 * The Australian image was moved down to the ANZAC section. I put the image of the poster in the lead because it's a really clear war image, and because when I try to put it in the Logistical support section it overruns the section, collides with the next image, and creates white space (at least on my screen). Dana boomer (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaah, like I said, this was just me thinking outloud; I'll admit layouts are not something I'm good at; either on Wiki or my house. Courcelles (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "However, Lord Kitchener also ordered that no horses under 15 hands (60 inches, 152 cm) be confiscated, at the request of the children of Britain, who were concerned for the welfare of their ponies." This needs a citation.


 * "Premiums were offered on Cleveland Bay stallions by the British War Office." Same here, citation needed.


 * "By the middle of 1917, Britain had procured enough animals to have possession of 591,000 horses and 213,000 mules, as well as almost 60,000 camels and oxen. Britain's Remount Department spent 67.5 million pounds on purchasing, training and delivering horses and mules to the front." Yeah, again... citation, please.


 * "Horses ate around ten times as much food by weight as a human, and hay and oats further burdened already overloaded transport services." I'm a broken record.  This might be common knowledge to horse people, but that's not me.


 * Okay, that's everything I saw on two read-throughs of this article. My biggest concern is the near ignoring of the Ottoman Empire throughout the article.  If they didn't use horses, say so somewhere and cite it; if they did, they need a section like all the other belligerent parties. Everything else, while I'd liek ti to be fixed, is trivial by comparison.


 * I look forward to seeing your responses. I've watchlisted this page, but feel free to ping me on my talk page when you have comments!  I enjoyed reading this article; and it's very close to being a GA as is. Courcelles (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your useful and thoughtful comments. I'll look over and fix a few simple things until Dana gets here.  I fixed a few simple things.  Some of the things you stated were in need of a source may be sourced via several sentences with one source at the end, if so, is there a solution better than using the same citation for multiple sequential sentences??   We have some comments on the engagements with the Turkish forces, but I will defer to Dana on source material.  I suspect the problem is lack of data.   Montanabw (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My thanks as well! I've added a few specific replies above, and will add the rest probably tomorrow. As far as general comments go: All of the places where you are asking for citations are referenced by whichever citation comes next. If you would like me to add duplicate references, I will, but I would prefer not to. As far as the Ottomons go, information on the Central Powers is very scarce, from what I have found. There are a few mentions of Turkish troops in my sources, which I'm assuming to be the soldiers of the Ottomon empire, since Turkey was not yet a country at this point, but these mentions are generally made in comparison to the ANZAC troops that they were fighting at the time, and so all of those mentions are in other sections. I've done more searching, but haven't been able to find enough to make them their own section. Dana boomer (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to Dana, yeah, the "Ottoman turks" were the Turks, who were the Ottomans (did that make sense?). Anyway, same basic difference.  You want the basic idea of the Palestinian theater, well, in a word, or three Lawrence of Arabia.  (grin)  Long story short, the Ottoman Empire was crumbling before WWI, and the war just polished it off.  They were not a particularly formidable party to the conflict, though they certainly controlled a lot of area... I have more background on the pre-WWI history for them, mostly due to my Arabian horse interest, the 1860-1914 Ottoman period was of particular interest for breeders of the Arabian horse (see Lady Anne Blunt, Crabbet Arabian Stud, Sheykh Obeyd and Ali Pasha Sherif if curious)  Montanabw (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I think we've answered all of the comments above. I didn't put specific answers under the requests for citation because, as I said above, they're all referenced by the next citation that exists. I've done more searching for information on the Ottomon/Turkish cavalry, and while I know they existed (and that Turkish troops were considered inferior to Allied troops, which is already in the article), I can't find any more than that. Nothing on specific commanders, numbers, procurement, supply, logistical use, casualties, memorials, anything. If you would like I can add a statement saying that they existed (maybe to the continental Europe section)? Dana boomer (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... nto enough for their own section. Turkey is part of continental Europe, so you can throw anything you have in there for now. The citations are fine if the next in-line following the statement also covers it; there's no reason to repeat the same footnote in sequence several times; this isn't DYK after all.  (Given that the belligerent party in the war was the Ottoman Empire, and that "Turkey" as a nation didn't exist until 1923, what are your thoughts on which term to use? I can see arguments on both sides, by the way.)  I think you'll need more on them before FAC, but for GA what you have will be fine, as long as they get some treatment as an independent entity outside of the context of defeats at the hands of the Allies.)  Hope that makes sense.  Courcelles (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, technically, part of Turkey is in Europe, and they are in NATO, but the bigger part geographically is in Asia Minor. But I digress.  They WERE one of the Central Powers, indeed!  At that time, "Turks" was a shorthand broadly referencing the ethnicity of the rulers and people of the Ottoman Empire, even though there were dozens if not hundreds of non-Turkish peoples living under Ottoman rule. (Remember, the capital was Constantinople, now Istanbul]  We do have a terminology issue to mull over here, as some of the works consulted will have used terminology of the time what we would today call un-PC.  It would be safe, though awkward, to say "the forces of the Ottoman Empire", and in a lot of cases, those soldiers actually WOULD have been ethnic Turks (given that most of the Arabs in Palestine hated them and sided with the Allies...)  I guess my thinking is if the source says "Turks" we say "Turks," if they say "Ottoman," we say "Ottoman."  After all, the winners write the history books.   Montanabw (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I've added in a sentence on the Turkish cavalry to the Europe section. There's a book that I've found that I want to get before FAC specifically on the Ottomon military in WWI, which should have more information on the cavalry - hopefully enough to give them their own section, since you're right that they're not really European. I agree that we should probably use whatever terminology the source uses - so far most of them have used Turk/Turkish, but if I come across any that refer to the Ottomon military I will use that terminology. Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What book is it? I might be able to get a look in it/copies to help; I have access to two major libraries within 15 miles. Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed that we actually do not have a single link to the Ottoman Empire. I made a minor tweak to the first logical place to do so and added one. Montanabw (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) The book is Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War by Edward J. Erickson. It's held by a couple of university libraries fairly near to me, so it should only take a few days to get it through ILL, I just have to get to the library to request it. Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like it will be very interesting! Most of my Ottoman Empire knowledge ends about the time the war started, and even that isn't all that extensive, so it will be fun to hear what you discover!   Montanabw (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dana, what's the timeframe on the book- because that's my only outstanding concern about passing this article as GA; the breadth of coverage standard. I'll giv eit another read through tomorrow, but that's the only outstanding issue I see right now. Courcelles (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's going to be at least this weekend before I can get to the library and probably another week before the book comes in. While I agree that more information should be provided before I take the article to ACR/FAC, I honestly think that between the mention in the Europe section and the discussion of them in the UK/ANZAC sections as being an inferior combantant, the requirement of breadth of coverage is satisfied. The GA requirements specifically state that not all major facts or details need to be included, and since the article touches on the subject I feel that it meets this standard, which is far less stringent than the ACR/FAC "comprehensiveness" requirement. However, if you still feel that we should wait until I get the book (like I said, it will probably a couple of weeks), then I will sit back and stop whining :) Dana boomer (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * adding **Dittoes of Dana's comment** If that's it, I think we are at GA with acknowledgment that we will need to add the other for FA.  Montanabw (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, after another read through and another look at the criteria, consider this GAR passed. (I'll run off and do the paperwork in a minute). I'll second my earlier recommendation to take this article through a MILHIST A-Class Review before going to FAC to get some specialists opinions on it.  All together, this will be truly a wonderful article once the Ottoman Empire has full coverage with the rest of the belligerent parties.  I'll keep it on my watchlist, it'll be interesting to see what comes in the next month or so. Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Thank you very much! This article will definitely be going through an ACR before FAC. I will be going to the library this weekend and will request the above book through ILL, as well as looking through a couple of books on the Ottoman Empire that my library currently holds. Dana boomer (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good- I see this won't be your first run through the gauntlet that is FAC- good luck!

HOORAY!!! HOORAY!!!! Montanabw (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)