Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of the United Kingdom during World War I


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Closed as Not Promoted - Cam (Chat) 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

History of the United Kingdom during World War I

 * Nominator(s): Jim Sweeney (talk) User talk:Jarry1250

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because both User:Jarry1250 and myself have expanded the article by twenty times, its been through a peer review and we now believe its A class standard Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support Glanced over article, seems A-class. I may change to oppose, neutral, or support, after thorough reading and critiquing. Ottoman project Review me 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Ref's after punctuation.
 * Watch over-linking: many terms are linked several times or more throughout the article.
 * It needs a copy-edit. While I've done what I could, there are still places that need someone very good at copy-editing to clean up the prose; it sounds really unprofessional in many places now.

The biggest issue is the prose. While I am going away for a couple weeks and may not be able to check in and change to support, if a copy edit is done by someone very good at it who can improve the prose and the other minor issues I mentioned above are fixed, I can be considered to be in support. – Joe   N  15:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree in part about the prose; I don't think it's brilliant, but "really unprofessional in many places" seems a little harsh. (I would say that though, I wrote ~half of it.) I'll try to get someone less inherently biased to have a look over it, of course. I couldn't find any refs before punctuation, I'm afraid. Maybe someone fixed them before I looked. Likewise with overlinking, I've had a look and while the same article is linked more than once, I can't find any instances when it wouldn't be awkward to backtrack to find the link (in the lead, for example). I'll go work on the prose some more now. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved some refs after punctuation and a couple of over links, there is a Requests for copy-editing at WikiProject Military history/Logistics. Thanks for the review --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies if I sounded harsh above, just bad writing annoys me. Thanks for the ref's and links, as soon as the copyedit is done I'll be satisfied. – Joe   N  01:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't like bad prose myself, just - sometimes it's a compromise. Working on it. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - (this version)
 * One self-redirect needs attention.


 * Ah, that'd be the one in the navbox at the bottom. I'll change it. 
 * I've changed it. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ reliable? (refs 2, 50, 52)


 * Its an educational website featuring on line biographies, primarily from the history of the USA and Britain the author is John Simkin (BA, MA, MPhil) a member of the European History E-Learning Project (E-Help), which aims to encourage and improve use of ICT and the internet in classrooms across the continent.
 * While I'm not convinced that this is the best thing to be citing information to, it seems reliable. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Same question with http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/index.htm (ref 5)
 * Its a Distance Learning University and College Degree site, written by a singularly accountable author (Chris Trueman BA (Hons), MA).
 * While I'm not convinced that this, too, is the best place to be getting your information, it seems reliable. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of what you have in ref 14, why not just cite the treaty? Digital Survivor should simply be a convenience link.
 * changed


 * Why is http://www.blacksacademy.net/content/3135.html reliable? (ref 17)
 * Blacksacademy is an educational database as Spartacus educational
 * The major question is who wrote it. For more, see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches.


 * Current ref 18 should be cited as if we were looking at the book; the Internet Archive is just a convenience link.
 * fixed I think


 * http://www.election.demon.co.uk/geresults.html gives an error. (ref 19)


 * What makes http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/royalty/russia/survivor.html reliable? (ref 27)
 * The Author is Professor Kent Sole, Department of Politcial Science,Georgia Southwestern State University, Americus, Georgia.


 * Refs 47–49 could be cited to just "Royal Navy" (note capital N there...)
 * Changed


 * Why is http://www.historyofwar.org/index.html reliable? Also, why is "available on line" in there? There is a link... (ref 57)
 * It's a history site and has been accepted as reliable on featured articles see World War I ref 36, 37 for example - Jim
 * (a) World War I is not featured. (b) Saying that it is used in another article does not prove its reliability. For more, see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think http://www.historyofwar.org/about.html provides good evidence as to the reliability of the site - accountability of authors, etc. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Refs 60 and 61, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1915/mar/01/damage-by-german-raids#S5CV0070P0_19150301_HOC_140, are cited to "Hansard". Is this not actually Parliament? ("© UK Parliament")
 * changed


 * Ref 62 should use cite news.
 * fixed


 * Why is ref 77, http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/index.htm, reliable?
 * changed ref


 * Why is ref 78, http://www.irishcultureandcustoms.com/ArticleIndx.html, reliable?
 * changed book ref added


 * Why is ref 79, http://homepage.eircom.net/~tipperaryfame/index.html, reliable?
 * now deleted above ref covers both


 * Why is ref 81, http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/, reliable?
 * removed ref - dont think its needs as there wiki links


 * There seems to be a lot of internet searching going on here. Perhaps the same effect, and much more reliable sources, could be found by visiting a library...? What I mean is, I can't believe that something like "German zeppelins bombed towns on the east coast, starting on 19 January 1915 with Great Yarmouth." cannot be found in a book. Yes, http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/snapshots/snapshot32/snapshot32.htm is technically reliable (hence no objection above), but this will have to be replaced prior to any FAC, as it now requires that claims be verifiable against high-quality reliable sources. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll no doubt re-reference the Zeppelin thing to Beckett (most things are in his book). 70% of citations refer to offline sources now (after Jim made some edits). I'm not sure what to make of the Learning Curve; for the benefit of anyone reading this not familiar with the site, it's run by the National Archives, the UK government's official archive (and a government department in fact). Their responsibility is maintaining the archives of more than a thousand years of heritage here in the UK. On the other hand, whilst they have access to a far greater number of primary sources than any singe person, they do not attribute their learning material to any one particular author, and do not state any editorial guidelines. So it's a toss up really. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that it isn't reliable under WP:RS; I'm saying that it isn't a 'high-quality' citation. For more see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Naturally. Is there a list identifying the top band of reliable sources? Criteria for being "high-quality"? I'd be interested to read it; the only mentions in that informative Signpost article of "high-quality" were for referencing any contentious claims about living people with them, which to my mind gives a slightly different impression of what is required. Perhaps you ought reply on my talk page to avoid cluttering this review? Cheers, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Some concerns, mostly from a MOS standpoint:
 * The article title uses "World War I", the infobox image caption uses "World War One", another image caption uses "WWI"...consistency, please.
 * fixed


 * The lead contains a link to Masterman which, not surprisingly, is a set index page. I presume the intended target is Charles Masterman.
 * fixed


 * Image captions need some cleanup: ending punctuation should not be used when the caption consists only of a nominal group, however extended it may be.
 * Quotations should not be italicized. Ship names should be italicized (HMS Audacious, RMS Olympic) as should publication names (The War Illustrated).
 * fixed


 * 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.
 * Citation notes: Every citation needs a publisher. Time magazine and the Daily Telegraph should be italicized. One wonky date (12 May, 2002) needs a formatting fix. Citations 60 and 61 are malformed - what is this: Parliament? ("© UK Parliament"Hansard'.
 * fixed


 * Quite a few publications listed in References are not cited anywhere (Bromley, HMSO, Morris, Murie, Pigou, The War Office). Have we lost some citations?
 * Bromley, Morris, Murie and Pigou removed can only think left in by error as the article evolvd
 * In general, this is in fairly good shape, but it would benefit from a copyedit. Maralia (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.