Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horses in World War I/archive2


 * 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:05, 4 June 2010.

Horses in World War I

 * Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This article describes the equine participants of World War I and the hardships they endured during the war. It has been through a thorough GA review, a peer review and a MILHIST A-class review, as well as having the eyes of several other editors upon it in the past few weeks. Malleus and Yomangan have been especially helpful in the pre-FAC polishing. All external links were working as of a few minutes ago, and there were no dab links. The article has had a pre-FAC image review by Jappalang. Thanks in advance for all comments and suggestions. Dana boomer (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments WOW!!! I've read this a few times in its development. It was always "good" and then "pretty good", but now it is excellent. I made a few tweaks&mdash;one verb construction and a missing comma&mdash;and I'll read it through again in the next few days, but it is in fine shape. It has a clear and obviously logical structure, the prose is enormously improved, pictures reflect the prose (although I'd love to see one by the Canadian artist), statistics are all there, etc. So, although I may have additional comments and tweaks to suggest over the next few days, I'll be the first to

SUPPORT. Nice job, Dana and friends. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, Ruth! Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, but one external link (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:9tWPgiS0DHoJ:www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/bft03_btfield_tour_of_retreat_from_monsxt.doc+Saving+the+guns+at+Le+Cateau+Cuneo&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) is to a Google cache, which is expiring. Ucucha 14:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The underlying url for that http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/bft03_btfield_tour_of_retreat_from_monsxt.doc works fine, but I don't know if someone thouht the html version of the page might be preferable as being more accesible than the Microsoft Word document? David Underdown (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would seem better to link to the DOC document (and use the appropriate marking for that, such as |format=DOC or so in cite templates). Ucucha 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now linked to the DOC document, with the appropriate format marker. Thanks for your comments, Ucucha. Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ucucha 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support&mdash;Looks good.
 * Comment&mdash;Overall it looks pretty good, and I think it's close to FA quality. However, I have a few concerns that I would like to see addressed first:
 * "Ultimately, because the Allied blockade prevented the Central Powers from importing horses to replace those lost, a lack of horses contributed to Germany's defeat." This sentence doesn't seem completely logical. Perhaps, "Ultimately, the Allied blockade prevented the Central Powers from importing horses to replace those lost, which contributed to Germany's defeat"?
 * Changed to your wording. Dana boomer (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence that begins "Beginning in 1917, cavalry was deployed..." discusses the battle of Cambrai. The following sentence does not. Thus the successive sentence that begins "During the battle, a..." appears disconnected. Does "the battle" refer to Cambrai here?
 * Yes, this refers to Cambrai. Specified (I think). Dana boomer (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Western Front in World War I made it clear that cavalry was almost useless against modern artillery..." I am unclear how this is relevant. The prior sentences had noted the ineffectiveness against "trench warfare, barbed wire and machine guns", but artillery was never mentioned. Could this be clarified?
 * Changed to "modern weaponry". Or would "modern warfare tactics" perhaps work better? Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence that reads "In a charge by French lancers in June 1918,..." seems disconnected from the rest of the paragraph. Could you clarify what is it trying to communicate? Perhaps a trend in French tactics? Or that this was an unusual act?
 * The connector was supposed to be a trend in French tactics. I've added what is hopefully a good connector to clarify this. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Germans stopped using cavalry on the Western Front not long after the beginning of the war, changing in response to the Allied Forces' new, more mechanized, battle tactics." The tank was not introduced until 1917, so this looks incorrect. In fact I'd almost say it looks badly in error. The Allies were notable for their reliance on obsolete tactics, and their main change (prior to 1917) was improvements in artillery fire. But perhaps I'm mistaken.
 * I've tweaked this sentence a bit to show that it was mainly dependent on improved weaponry. Better? Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the text doesn't correctly fit the main topic of their affiliated sections. The paragraph that begins "Feeding horses was a major issue..." has more to do with logistics than casualties. (There is only one sentence in the paragraph that has to do with the death of horses.) The paragraph that begins, "Animals bolstered morale at the front..." has little to do with Logistical support.
 * Perhaps the current "casualties" section could be re-entitled "casualties and logistics", or maybe "logistics and casualties"? This way the information on feeding could remain there, and the paragraph on morale and cleanliness could be moved from the logistical support section. One of my major problems with this article was some of the information not fitting neatly into one topic or another. Or would a section just on "logistics" be long enough? And would that be too confusing with the section on "logistical support" that is detailing how horses were used to support the rest of the forces, rather than on how the forces supported the horses? Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Further reply - after sleeping on this for a night, what about "Care and casualties" or "Casualties and care"? This would get us away from the logistics/logistical support issue, while still showing that the section was about a little more than just the horses that died/were injured. Dana boomer (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, or perhaps "Casualties and upkeep".–RJH (talk)
 * I like yours. Done, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work on the article.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, RJHall. I have tried to address all of them, but have a few questions, especially on the last point. I look forward to your responses. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing my concerns.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources and referencing issues Otherwise all sources look good, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Citations
 * 12: "Centre for First World War Studies" should not be italicised
 * Done. It was a mixup in the cite template formatting. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 15: I can't relate the linked page to the citation details. Is this the right page?
 * Yes, this is the right page. The cite information was given to me by David Underdown (who commented above), and he has an actual copy of the article, so I think that the National Archives website just gives a garbled transcription of the article title. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In view of the disparities in the title of the cited article, I wonder about the value of citing to a page which merely advertises the mis-named article for sale. Wouldn't a straight cite to the article itself be a better approach? Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I was working on the principle of "Say where you got it", I've only viewed via the pdf available from there (you can view it free if you're on-site at The National Archvies at Kew, and potentially via the ATHENS portal, if your institution subscribes to that resource). David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 30: The magazine is Undersea Warfare not Underseas Warfare
 * Oops, fixed. Thanks for catching this. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 77: UNESCO is not the publisher of this website - it is the patron of the exhibition which this website describes. The publisher is art-ww1.com. The title should, I believe, be rendered as "Art of the First World War: 15 - Umberto Boccioni"
 * Actually, I think the publisher is Memorial de Caen, per this page. Please let me know if I'm wrong, though. I've changed the title. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right; Memorial de Caen is the publisher of the art-ww1.com website. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 80: perhaps should have a more informative title than "Stories".
 * Changed to "Stories: 'Goodbye Old Man'". Better? Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * References list
 * The Hammond book lacks publisher location
 * Added. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Brian. I think I have addressed all of them. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article as published in Ancestors magazine was entitled "The unluckiest man", for some reason, on the DoucmetnsOnline page which allows you to download a pdf which includes the article, this has been switched to "The last British soldier to be killed in WW1" (which of course explaions why he might be considered the unluckiest man...). The ability to download the article is essentially a matter of convenience - back copies could probably be obtained from Wharncliffe (though to add a layer of complication, Ancestors magazine has now ceased, and The National Archives will be launching a new magazine later this year). Perhaps the title should be amended to "The unluckiest man (The last British soldier to be killed in WW1)" which covers all bases?  David Underdown (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. An excellent contribution. Doug (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't resist a last recommendation: please also consider uploading and using Cavalry and Tanks at Arras, 1918 by Lieutenant Alfred Theodore Joseph Bastien. An entirely appropriate painting, comfortably out of copyright. Doug (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. I've uploaded the file now at File:TanksandhorsesatArras.jpg; would you mind checking to make sure I added the correct licensing? I've added it to the article under the casualties section. Dana boomer (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Predictably, I think it looks great. Added the author's date of birth and death to clear up that it's been out of copyright since 2005. Doug (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There were no "mechanized armored formations" in WWI.
 * Then what would you suggest I call something like the Royal Tank Regiment? Would it work better if I changed the sentence in the lead from "and many of the traditional functions of horse cavalry were replaced by mechanized armored formations." to something like "...horse cavalry began to be replaced by mechanized armored formations"? Dana boomer (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * RTR was a prototype tank regiment, but did not have the mechanised resources or tactical approach to justify suggesting that there were "mechanized armored formations" in WWI. Prototypes were deployed, intimitely comingled with and in support of a much heavier weight of foot soldiers. Guderian only came up with the concept of using "mechanized armored formations" after the war, so clearly they did not replace cavalry in WWI. I like that they were intended to replace the 'shock attack' function of cavalry, but that is where the similarity ends. The significance of the tank in WWI was largely constructed in the German propoganda and popular consciousness to justify the war's outcome. Doug (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, how about "...and the shock tactic functions of horse cavalry began to be replaced by mechanized armored formations."? Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the particular term "mechanized armored formations" that has a distinct military meaning and that causes a problem, since they only became a reality two decades after the end of the war and had not been conceived at the time of the phasing out of cavalry. How about something along the lines of "Cavalry units were initially considered essential offensive elements of a military force, but over the course of the war, the manifest vulnerability of the horse to modern machine gun and artillery fire fostered interest in mechanized forces. This led to the development of tanks that would ultimately replace cavalry in the shock attack (ref from Blitzkrieg?)."? Doug (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For referencing of the role of tanks in WWI: Willmott, H.P. (2003), First World War, Dorling Kindersley, ISBN 1405300299; ISBN 9781405300292 (pulled from tank).
 * Allright, I've replaced it with your proposed wording. As this is the lead, we don't need references for it. From my reading (anyone, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), this new summary wording is still supported by the information and references given in the introductory paragraphs of the Cavalry section. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Many British tacticians realized before the war that advances in technology meant that the era of mounted warfare was coming to an end." Is have to disagree, even post-WWI Liddell-Hart was quite isolated while the cavalry officer class was dominant and obstinate. Let's not sugar-coat their gross misunderstanding of the impact of technology on war pre-WWI, despite the lessons of the Crimean War and the Charge of the Light Brigade.
 * My sources made it quite clear that cavalry officers were "dominant and obstinate". I tried to convey this in the article without straight-out calling them thick-headed, behind-the-times idiots, but I apparently didn't do that well :) The way my sources described it, the tacticians tried to get the military to realize that cavalry was outmoded, but the cavalry commanders (perhaps older, higher ranking?) completely over-rode them. Would you have a suggestion to make this more clear without my going into the realm of OR? Dana boomer (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said :) I was caught by a perceived mismatch between the initial sentence and your subsequent explanation. This appears to be a common theme. Doug (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried to tweak the first two sentences of that paragraph to provide a bit more continuity. Did I make things better or worse? Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * " In the years following the war most armies became mechanized, which required many cavalry regiments to be converted to armored units." Firstly, 'most armies' did not become mechanised. Secondly, mechanised units were created (for example in Germany) from scratch, not 'converted' from cavalry units.
 * Changed to "In the years following the war many major armies became mechanized, and most cavalry regiments were either converted to mechanized units or disbanded." I'm using "major" in the sense that they were major world players, although I'm not sure if this is completely clear. It is any better now, though? Dana boomer (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "Following the war, the armies of the world powers initiated a process of mechanization in earnest, and most cavalry regiments were either converted to mechanized units or disbanded."? Doug (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your wording. Changed. Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am having a support-oppose relationship with this article. It tends to glorify horses where, although their contribution, nobility and suffering were immense, they were primarily draft animals and, in limited numbers, mounts for scouts in both world wars. There are also a number of questionable assertions regarding tanks and mechanised warfare, some of which I have highlighted above. Other than the accuracy issues, I really love the article: neat, concise, great prose, evocative and interesting. I'd support on FA criterion 1a, but the rest is too open for debate right now. Doug (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Doug, and for the 1a support. I have replied to your specific comments above (although with more questions than answers). If you have further specifics you would like to see changed, I am more than willing to work on them. I don't think, however, that the article has serious accuracy issues. I have tried to follow my sources closely and use only reliable scholarship, without delving into the realm of OR or speculation, and the article has already been reviewed by several military editors who didn't find serious errors in accuracy. That being said, I am interested in seeing further comments from you, and thanks again for your efforts on this article so far. Dana boomer (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your open attitude. I will rereview and try to avoid knee-jerk responses to common misconceptions regarding the military significance (negligible) and use (sparse, as infantry support) of tanks in WWI. Doug (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL Doug, the article IS about horses so of course there is an emphasis! Focus is not "glorifiation," IMHO.  (Full disclosure:   I have been watching this article's evolution for months, am merely an involved copyeditor here, too COI to be part of the FAC, but not the primary researcher or contributor.  AND I am diving in uninvited! (grin))   But on review of your comments, I have to express my 100% SUPPORT for this article's FAC and assure you that most of your concerns were already raised by others and addressed during the WP MilHist A-class review, where we had a lot of people wanting to bog the article down with extensive diversions and nuances about other areas of military equipment, tactics, etc., when the article is, as its title suggests, about the horse.   The research Dana has done is extensive!  Clearly, the verifiable contribution of six million animals with 25% of their losses occurring in battle clearly exceeds the common misperception that they were simply "draft animals and mounts for scouts."  While your comments about tank warfare are helpful and Dana has expressed a clear desire to clarify any misperceptions or misinformation, the point of THIS article is the use of the horse and how WWI marked the transitional period between the use of horses and the use of assorted mechanized equipment as instruments of war.  (Compare Horses in World War II, for both info on the changes in their use -- i.e. more true then that they were draft animals and mounts for scouts-- and an example of an article that Dana has NOT worked on!  LOL!)
 * Also Doug,  I want to encourage you in your own re-review of the article in light of the clarification Dana has provided and encourage you to address Dana's comments and questions with helpful specifics in line with your expertise.  BUT - if you want Dana to keep the article as verified and accurate as it is already, can you provide us with appropriate source material to back up your assertions?  You must have noticed that virtually every statement in the article has a citation, and Dana worked diligently to make sure that the contents of this article reflected the actual content of the source.  (And note, the sources themselves may not have been experts on tank warfare, but still pass WP:V.)  She is right that we cannot venture off into the realm of OR at this point in the game!   Montanabw (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I am glad for your expertise and I am doubly glad to see the offer of citations. But don't put words in my mouth -- I at no time claimed that MilHist reviewers were experts, nor did I "insist that improvements are unnecessary".  I was merely trying to avoid another round of what I considered to be nitpicking over tangentally related topics that drug out the A-class review for months.  I also did not intend to imply that citations trump accuracy, though what I wrote could be construed that way and do apologize to that extent.  My intent was simply to explain that experts on horse cavalry may not have been experts on tanks, thus the terms in the article reflect the source material used, which can modified by other source material.  Montanabw (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to AGF, despite that fact that you just deleted a good number of my comments. I understand your frustration with the length of the process. Doug (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Per my comments that Montana just deleted, Dana, please take check double linking of shock tactics and shock attack. Other edits look good.
 * Are you meaning the linking of shock tactics both in the lead and in the body? I think this is an acceptable use of linking twice to the same term, but if it's a big deal I can remove the second link. Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect to Battle of Cambrai "...although this plan never came to fruition." is unclear. I gather from Battle of Cambrai that three British cavalry divisions were deployed but the attempted breakthrough by the cavalry was late, and failed. Perhaps a rephrase for clarity? Doug (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Allright, I've done some tweaking here to clarify. Let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Typo: "only few weeks into the war half of all Austrian cavalry mounts were disabled" should be only "only a few weeks" Doug (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Combination of Canada and the US seems rather arbitrary, is there a reason for this? In the context of both World Wars Canada is more closely associated with the UK than the US. Canada's army was functionally and politically an extension of the British Army. Personally, I'd split them into two sections at the line of the paragraph break. Australia, New Zealand and Canada (as Empire) is also a more logical grouping. Doug (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to go for a geographical theme in the grouping. I also don't want to split it up into too many subsections, because a bunch of one-paragraph section looks really choppy. If you really think that these two need to be split up, what about this: Have a United Kingdom level three header (the same that Great Britain is now), with level four headers for Great Britain, ANZAC and Canada. Then have the US be its own level three header. Would this work? It's still more headers, but they're a lower level, so it would look less chopped up. Just some thoughts. Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per your comment, and a couple of other editors bringing up the same issue, I have now rearranged the Cavalry section to follow the outline above. Please check and see if this is acceptable to you. Dana boomer (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa on the comment deletion!!! That was unintentional, I thought the edit conflict was just my own double edit! Yesterday was sort of a suck-egg day for me, I was in a knee-jerk frame of mind myself. Montanabw (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No other issues, again, a great article. Doug (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Doug (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Provisional Support – Haven't read all of the article yet, but I have looked at a good piece of it and everything seems fine prose-wise. I did make a couple of little copy-edits, which should be checked, but didn't spot any significant problems. If I get to read the rest of the article, I'll bump this to a full support.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 14:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the provisional support, Giants. I've looked at your edits and they look good. Dana boomer (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Query, should the caption on File:TanksandhorsesatArras.jpg indicate that it's a work of art (author, title, etc)? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the painting name and painter. Let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.