Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the United Kingdom during World War I/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:50, 1 September 2009.

History of the United Kingdom during World War I

 * Nominator(s): - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria (duh). It is my intention to the put the article to the some reviewers live on Wikivoices, and see what emerges. I am going to note a few of the unstruck concerns of the A-class review team below (they may or may not still be accurate) and we can work through them. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A-class review "pointers"
 * Whether or not the references are to the best available sources
 * I see both unspaced emdashes and spaced endashes; while these are both acceptable forms per MOS, please pick one for consistency within the article.
 * Nonbreaking spaces should be used between values and units of measure (1.4 million).
 * Capitalization needs some attention. Why do we have "Prime minister" even when used as a title, yet "World War I Recruiting poster", "Women and the Suffragette movement", "Ration books", etc? Other iffy uses: Government, Navy, Army.

Queries  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments: I reviewed this for GAN and was incredibly impressed with the quality. At the time I considered it very close to FA standard, and so I'm glad the intentions of the author(s) was to take it this far.
 * I edited out one occurence of "Prime Minister" in my GA review, after seeing the uncapitalised alternative as more frequently occuring. I thought this might initiate some sort of consensus, but you reverted it with the edit "Brevity is the sole (sic) of wit". As highlighted in the A-class review, there needs to be consensus and I would suggest uncapitalised.
 * Call me picky, but I think the % should be replaced with per cent. The MoS gives the use of % as more common in scientific articles, and this is a stance I agree with.
 * Not overwhelmed by: "''Meanwhile, the country faced other challenges; plans to rescue the King's cousins in Russia, including Tsar Nicholas II, were largely unsuccessful and the civilian death-rate rose due to food shortages and Spanish Flu, which hit the country in 1918. Military deaths have been estimated at a figure exceeding 850,000." For a couple of reasons.
 * "The country faced other challenges" for me appears to read as "other challenges [as well as the dissolving ties between the royal families of Germany and England]", and I didn't think that the dissolving of ties was a national problem particularly. Further, is the rescuing of the King's cousins a national problem? If it is, I question whether it is of the same category as the death of civilians and military personnel. I think there needs to be better distinction between the problems faced by the Royal family (though they may be of national significance) and the country.
 * "plans to rescue the King's cousins in Russia, including Tsar Nicholas II, were largely unsuccessful". It goes on to say that him and his immediate family were murdered. Is there no better way of wording it? Largely unsuccessful leaves incredible ambiguity.
 * Government: "when several thousands of men were sacrificed for gains that were were perceived as meagre.". The example seems arbitrary, especially considering there is not one for the shell crisis.
 * Monarchy: "Writer H. G. Wells wrote about Britain's "alien and uninspiring court", and George famously replied: "I may be uninspiring, but I'll be damned if I'm alien.". A date would be appropriate here, was this before or during the war?
 * I would consider the "Women and the suffragette movement" to come under "Social change".
 * All I have time for at the moment. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Conservatives were probably no longer the second largest party by 1915 - United Kingdom general election, December 1910 was practically a dead heat and I think they may have picked up the odd byelection afterwards.
 * The Old contemptables were formed from the territorials, the reservists and regulars left in the UK. Many of the regulars serving overseas were needed there including in campaigns such as East Africa.
 * the lead says that "the civilian death-rate rose due to food shortages" but the main body reports improved health under rationing.
 * there is far more detail on the doings of various royals than on the impact of the Easter Rising - the demise of the Irish Home rule party seems to have been overlooked.
 * I can't lay hands on the source, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the welsh speaking area contracted due to welsh speaking men serving in the war and coming home speaking english.

Sorry for not posting everything immediately, but I'm just going to throw what I got for right now and come back with a thorough pass when I had the time. Thanks for your feedback on the 'cast! I'll try and copyedit ASAP. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by David Fuchs
 * Prose : Like I said on Skype, just look through my (coming) revisions for pointers. I'm not going to make you do a bunch of hunt-and-pick fixes, because the important thing is you learn from them and weed them out (from your own writing at least). When I've performed my copyedit, I'll list what I went after; User:Tony1's 1a criterion guide should be your bible.
 * Images : Jappa has already proscribed licensing issues, so I'll cover some general comments with the alt text (Eubilides will probably stop by and offer better stuff at some point.) In general, you have to think about what a blind person wouldn't necessarily connect with. For example, File:Tsar Nicholas II & King George V.JPG currently says "A photograph of two men, very alike, standing next to each other. Both are in full military regalia; one uniform dark, the other white". "A photograph" is wasted text, and what is "full military regalia"? Better to explain that they're wearing clothes festooned with ribbons, medals, and cords, for example.
 * The Altviewer tool is currently offline due to file server problems, so for now I'm deferring routine alt text reviewing. Eubulides (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the alt text and overall it was quite good; thanks for writing it. I tried to improve it a bit; that edit removed the "A photograph of", added a bit more description of the visual appearance of the prime ministers, tried to mimic the text of the original images more closely, and did some minor punctuation and copyediting for brevity. But this is mostly just icing on the cake. Eubulides (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * General comments
 * Can we not use the term "First World War" over "World War I", the former seems more British than the latter.?
 * First World War or World War I - Both the Great War and First World War redirect to World War I. I can not see any problem with using World War I unless there is a ground swell of opinion against it ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a couple of photos/pictures that still need alt text adding.


 * "There were three British Armies during World War I," - is there any way this statement can be reworded? I say this as Four British field armies fought in France during the war, i know thats different to what is being stated but i think it may be a tad confusing.
 * Changed wording --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ""In German terms Jutland was a victory" as they had suffered fewer losses in men and ships" Isnt this a bit Point of view-ish? Considering this article is about the UK during the war i would imagine the British version of events should be noted - that the German main fleet returned to port and did not rupture the blockade
 * Changed wording --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "In August 1916, the High Seas Fleet tried another similar operation and was "lucky to escape annihilation"." - do we have a link to the article, if it exists, about this engagement?
 * There does not seem to be an article for this --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—1a, both on the clause level and more broadly extending to unsafe political/social generalisations (even if they seem to be uttered by secondary sources).
 * Some great pics.
 * WRT Enigma's comment ... "World War I" seems natural to me, and I'm not American. Do UK speakers not like it?
 * As Awadewit said on the WikiVoice review, "developed as a nation" is a problem. " In order to". And whose goal in the UK was it to defeat Germany? I think that is a ticklish political/social issue. Some historians see it as a conspiricy against the undertrodden in both countries. Who were the "Central Powers" (would love not to have to divert to that link target to know)?
 * Remove "On a military level".
 * Patriotism spreading? Again, complex and not safe to generalise about.
 * Lots of howevers, furthermores, meanwhiles, neverthelesses et al.
 * Is it useful to link "declared war" (targeted at "Declaration of war"? We all know what it means. "Cabinet" linked? It's a common word. Like Australia and Canada. And if "British Empire" is to be linked, let it be to a relevant section of that target.

And much more.

Can this be thoroughly copy-edited? It is several hours' work, probably best split between a number of users who are skilled at this. I wonder whether Colin is interested? I would withdraw it and resubmit in a month or so. Tony  (talk)  09:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I've gone over one section, and my earlier hunch that the lead was the hardest part to write were confirmed. The article may well be within reach of FA standard with tender LC, and perhaps a somewhat reconceived lead might come more easily once the rest is ok. Tony  (talk)  13:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's less of a divison over World War I/First World War than there used to be, but as I understand it historically British and Commonwealth sources have favoured First/Second World War, whereas World War I/II was more common in US sources (and some might say thst it looks more like a film title). Of course, to most of those who lived through it, it was imply the Great War. David Underdown (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * David that’s a pretty good outline.
 * Another general comment would be to this sentence: "...'moral commitment' to France was another matter; extensive secret talks between the nations had been going on since..."
 * I have just recently completed a uni assignment on the raise of nations and the basic point is that the nation is the "soul" of the country, the state is the government etc. From that very basic definition the use of nation throughout the article appears to be bob on except on the above occasion, would anyone object if this is changed to "states"?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
 * http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/total_war.htm
 * http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/treatyoflondon1839.php
 * http://www.election.demon.co.uk/
 * Current refs 81 and 92 (Bourke) are lacking a publisher (BBC in this instance..)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Thanks again to Jarry for appearing on our Wikivoices podcast! Most of what I'm outlining below, I already said there.

Sources:
 * Spartacus Educational - This person's books all seem to be self-published and he writes about a lot of different topics. He does not seem to be an expert on WWI, so this does not appear to be a high-quality RS.
 * Digital survivors.com (1839 treaty) – This is not a RS – Note that it says on the about page "Scott Manning is a business analyst working for a software company in the Philadelphia area. He has a passion for history and is currently working on a Bachelor's degree in Military History."
 * Election.demon.co.uk appears to be a SPS.
 * Kent Sole Romanov article – Kent Sole doesn't have a PhD. Considering there is so much published on the Romanovs, I would go with a book here. This isn't a high-quality RS.
 * History Learning Site – This is not a RS – Note that the about page states: "Chris Trueman BA (Hons), MA set up www.historylearningsite.co.uk in 2000 as he felt there was no easily accessible and comprehensive website on World History on the web. The site has grown in popularity and is now viewed by hundreds of thousands of people each month from around the world. 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. Chris graduated with a BA (Honours) in History from Aberystwyth University, Wales in 1979 and has since studied at Loughborough University and gained a MA in management from Brighton University in 2000." This is a SPS and not a high-quality RS.
 * Learning Curve – This is teaching plan and although it is assembled by the National Archives, it is not a high-quality reliable source for a topic like WWI, on which so much good scholarship has been published.

Spot fact-checking:
 * "although the act itself did not refer to the death penalty, it made provision for civilians breaking these rules to be tried in army courts martial, where the maximum penalty was death." - I did not see this in the source.
 * "In the early stages of the war, many men, fuelled by promises of glory, decided to "join up" to the armed forces: in August 1914 alone, half a million signed up to fight.[53] Recruitment remained fairly steady through 1914 and early 1915, but fell dramatically during the later years, especially after the Somme campaign, which resulted in 500,000 casualties. As a result, conscription was introduced in January 1916, for single men, and extended in May to all men aged 18 to 41." - I did not see the information in the source.


 * Entire Yarmouth and Lowestoft section is sourced to a 1916 newspaper – This is a primary source. Considering this raid is an important event, we should use secondary sources, not the propaganda-ridden newspapers of the time. :)
 * Changed to book ref --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ”There was also a notable group of war poets who wrote about their own experiences of war, which caught the public attention. Some died on active service, most famously Rupert Brooke,Isaac Rosenberg, and Wilfred Owen, while some, such as Siegfried Sassoon survived. Themes of the poems included the youth (or naivety) of the soldiers, and the dignified manner in which they fought and died. This is evident in lines such as "They fell with their faces to the foe", from the "Ode of Remembrance" taken from Laurence Binyon's For the Fallen, which was first published in The Times in September 1914.” - I've added a fact tag for this information. The only source was the September 1914 newspaper, which can't possibly be a source for all of this information, as it can't summarize the works of all of these war poets just as the war is beginning.


 * "She took an active role in promoting the Girl Guide movement, the Voluntary Aid Detachment (VAD), the Land Girls and in 1918, she took a nursing course and went to work at Great Ormond Street Hospital.' - This is sourced to the National Portrait Gallery. Not all of this information is in the source and we should really be using a different source for this information – the NPG is an expert in portraiture.
 * Changed to book ref --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness:
 * The article's title is “History of the United Kingdom during World War I”, but there is very little about Scotland, Ireland, or Wales. I think more needs to be added about these areas. Two examples:
 * This legislation did not apply to Ireland, despite its then status as part of the United Kingdom (but see Conscription Crisis of 1918)." - This crisis was obviously a big deal – I think it deserves more of an explanation.
 * The Easter rising of 1916 also seems like it deserves more than a sentence.


 * The lead mentions that "At the outbreak of war, patriotism spread throughout the country, and it has been argued that many of the class barriers of Edwardian England were diminished during the period. " However, the article does not really explain this in any detail. A paragraph in the "Social change" section would be a good idea.
 * The "Music" section is a little thin. Can this be expanded?
 * I believe this was the first war with war photographers – perhaps that could be included?

Prose: - The article needs a thorough copyedit. Here are some examples from the "Government" section.
 * ”Asquith declared war on the German Empire on 4 August 1914, in response to the demands for military passage that were forced upon Belgium by Germany, and the expiration of Britain's own ultimatum at 11 p.m. that day.” - What does “military passage” mean here? This sentence is also confusing because the reader doesn't even know that Britain gave Germany an ultimatum. Perhaps expanding this to two or three sentences and adding a bit more information would help.
 * "Britain's reasons for declaring war were complex; the 1839 Treaty of London had committed the United Kingdom to safeguard Belgium's neutrality in the event of invasion,[14] but the Foreign Office had already concluded that it might not apply.” - The “it” no longer refers back “treaty”, so “it” should be replaced by “treaty”.
 * ”Britain's 'moral commitment' to France was another matter” - What is this moral commitment, exactly?
 * ”This lack of proof that war was unavoidable had led to disagreement within the cabinet as late as 31 July." - Confusing beginning of sentence.
 * ”in keeping with the Liberals' historical position as defenders of a laissez-faire style of government” - Isn't laissez-faire usually an economic term?
 * "This coalition government lasted until 1916, when the Unionists became dissatisfied with Asquith and the Liberals' conduct of affairs, particularly over the battle of the Somme." - Perhaps a brief explanation of who the Unionists were?
 * " For the first time, the government could react quickly, without endless bureaucracy to tie it down, and with up-to-date statistics on such matters as the state of the merchant navy and farm production." - Unnecessary words: "endless" and "such".
 * The success of his government can also be attributed to a general lack of desire for an election, and the practical absence of dissent that this brought about." - What is "this" referring to?
 * There are two “this's” in a row in the last paragraph that are confusing – what are they referring to? I would replace them with or add a word “this policy”, etc.

Media: I would like to suggest adding a film clip from The Battle of the Somme – it is in the PD!

I hope these comments are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Image review See Talk:History of the United Kingdom during World War I (provided by )

Weak oppose, based on a review of the lead and the first section. There's a lot of fine material here, but there is some fuzziness in the prose. -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * “developed as a nation”: not clear enough, especially for the very first sentence. I think you mean that Britain rapidly added infrastructure and changed socially, but this phrase is rather muddy.  I had a couple of tries at rephrasing this but I’d like to be sure what the intent is first.  The phrase in the dab header, “effect of the war on civilian and military life”, is admirably clear; perhaps some paraphrase of that would work.
 * Yes, that's what I meant (though I didn't like it when I wrote it) -- Jarry1250
 * “war-related industries grew rapidly, and production increased, as disparate groups of people pulled together”:
 * military production increased, but overall production fell, according to the body of the article. To avoid ambiguity I think “and production increased” should be cut; if it refers to military production it repeats the previous phrase.
 * “pulled together” doesn’t seem supported. The body of the article says that there was resentment at the some specifically named other groups: the Belgians and the Irish; and the use of women caused “initial” trades union resentment, though perhaps that changed.  In any case “pulled together” is a bit vague – do you mean that the traditional labour force welcomed the new groups that helped the war effort?  How was the pulling together evidenced?
 * “demands for military passage”: I presume this means that Germany insisted on the right of their troops to pass through Belgium, rather than that Germany invaded Belgium? Or is the distinction moot?  The article you link to, Causes of World War I, doesn’t seem to mention military passage, so I would just like to check that this is supported by the reference.  It could perhaps be made more specific too, since this is a phrase many readers won’t know, and you provide no further context.
 * The distinction is largely moot, but in theory they demanded (as you say) "the right of their troops to pass through Belgium" and only "invaded" when this offer was rejected. Of course, in Belgium's eyes, it was an invasion either way. -- Jarry1250
 * “was by necessity replaced over the course of the war” doesn’t quite work: “replaced” implies a change at a specific time, but “over the course of” implies a gradual process. If this refers to the changes made when Lloyd George became prime minister then perhaps “lasted until 1916”; if you mean that the policy changed during Asquith’s tenure, e.g. under the coalition government, then how about “was modified over the course next two years, and ultimately abandoned in 1916.”  I am not sure about “of necessity”; you don’t seem to say what the necessity was.  What exactly does the source say about the reason for the change in policy?  Was the criticism of Asquith specifically associated with the “business as usual” policy, so that one could say it became the common political view that the policy was causing the war to go badly?
 * I'll have to think about that one -- Jarry1250
 * “designed to take total responsibility for the war, regardless of its outcome”: what does “regardless of its outcome” mean?
 * Superfluous, I'll remove it. -- Jarry1250
 * Why did total war give the government access to up-to-date statistics unavailable to Asquith’s governments?
 * " Highly able young men were appointed to collect and collate data and to bypass slow moving government departments." -- Jarry1250
 * “This ultimately heralded the collapse of the Liberals and the rise of the Labour Party during the 1920s”: the source doesn’t make this connection: it mentions the 1918 suffrage act and the following paragraph says that the war heralded several seismic political shifts. I agree it’s a reasonable construction but I think you should find a source that makes that construction if you want to say it.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.