Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/British Army during World War I

British Army during World War I
I started tinkering with this article two weeks ago and one thing lead to another and here we are. I would like to get the article to A class, but think it has some way to go. Any suggestions would be appreciated --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

LeadSongDog

 * Lede is completely uncited, so should be carefully checked to ensure each statement is elsewhere in the text. I'd suggest hidden comments to say where. ✅ removed what I could not readily source
 * Commanders:
 * When did French's term start? Why was he replaced? ✅
 * "conduct during the war" or "conduct of the war""? ✅
 * Organisantion:
 * consider "any conflict" or "any external conflict"? ✅  changed wording
 * link first use of Guards, infantry, cavalry regiment, division, brigade, battalion, how big are these units? ✅ all linked the size of each unit is found via the link don't think we need it in the text
 * relate 3s6d/week to the modern equivalent ✅
 * Recruitment and conscription
 * not just men, women (esp nurses), boys (some of 14) volunteered ✅ good catch on the woman in ww1, I have not commented on boys volunteering as officially they never did volunteers had to be 18
 * Doctrine
 * the quotation "In every respect the Expeditionary Force in 1914 was incomparably the best trained, best organized, and best equipped British Army which ever went forth to war." is attributed in Beckett & Simpson p.38 to J.E. Edmonds' Military Operations, France and Belgium, 1914, Volume I, pp.10-11, HMSO London (1925) should be verified and properly attributed ✅
 * Artillery tactics
 * link first use of creeping barrage, indirect fire ✅
 * Communications
 * link first use of dispatch, trench wireless set, flags ✅
 * Life in the trenches
 * lice and rats didn't cause the diseases, they carried them. ✅
 * Gas helmet
 * see Heller, Charles E. (September 1984). "Chemical Warfare in World War I: The American Experience, 1917-1918". Combat Studies Institute. http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Heller/HELLER.asp.


 * that's all for now, perhaps more later.LeadSongDog come howl  18:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D
This is a very good article, and I think that I'll borrow elements of its structure for the Australian Army in World War II article I'm slowly working on. My comments are: Nick-D (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'commanders' section is probably placed too early in the article, and could be expanded to discuss the backgrounds (and performance) of lower ranked officers as well. Eg, how did the Army identify its junior officers, how did men become divisional and corps commanders and did the system work? ID JUNIOR OFFICERS DONE
 * It seems a bit simplistic to state that the Army's experiences with colonial warfare led to the adoption of offensive doctrine prior to the war - the same was true for the French Army (which took horrific losses as a result) as well as the Germans and (as late as 1917) the US Army changed wording ✅
 * You could merge the section on the BEF and Kitchener's Army into a single section describing how the Army's organisation changed over the war ✅
 * The statement that 'The British Army of 1914, was the best trained best equipped and best organized British Army ever sent to war' needs to be qualified - the source was published in 1925 and better trained and equipped British Army units have probably been deployed since. changed wording ✅
 * The 'Equipment' section is probably too detailed given that all of these weapons have their own articles ✅
 * It should be noted that British Empire forces were integrated into the British Army and used British weapons, organisations, etc, and were often led by British officers. ✅
 * The Royal Flying Corps and its eventual separation from the Army to form the RAF should be described. ✅
 * Thanks for the comments -I did consider the RFC but as I had not covered any of the other Corps in detail left them out Tank Corps  Machine Gun Corps etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Simon Harley

 * A greater mention of the work of the Machine Gun Corps might be warranted, what with their use of indirect fire - could be described in the doctrine section. The whole section about the firing rates of the Vickers HMG is somewhat pointless if the reader doesn't know why such fire was necessary. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Creation of the Tank Corps? When was it, why was it created? ✅
 * Harper at Cambrai - there's a lot of published materiel out there which questions the standard perception of his role during the battle. A World War I encyclopedia is hardly authoritative or representative. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)