Template:Did you know nominations/Battalion of detachments


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Battalion of detachments

 * ... that the British Army's Peninsular War battalions of detachments were commended for their gallantry on the battlefield but criticised for their conduct in camp? "He will not flatter them by saying that he has not had, upon several occasions to be dissatisfied with their conduct, in their quarters, in their camp, and on their marches; but they have uniformly sustained, in an exemplary manner, the character of the regiments to which they belong, and of British soldiers, in the field against the enemy; ... gallantry and discipline in the field." Quote from Arthur Wellesley
 * ALT1:... that the British Army commander-in-chief criticised the use of battalions of detachments in the Peninsular War but later raise his own such unit for service in the Walcheren Expedition? "suffered for want of clothing ... their discipline relaxed ... much inconvenience has been occasioned to the regiments to which these men belong ... order these detachments home" "Dundas authorized the creation of the unit known as the battalion of detachments"
 * ALT2:... that a British Army battalion of detachments formed for the Walcheren Expedition comprised men from 17 different regiments? Source: Table 3 shows men of 17 different line regiments formed the battalion
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Great Island

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 15:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol voting keep.svg This substantial article is new enough and long enough. Approving the original hook for which the hook facts are cited inline. The other hooks may be OK but are not cited inline at the end of the relevant sentences. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)