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

History of the United Kingdom during World War I
I believe this article may be A class but would like a peer review first its been expanded by about 10 times by User:Jarry1250 and myself. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. (20 times actually.) It appeals to me as an article that could attract a great deal of interest among the greater public. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert
I like what you have done with this article. I don't think I can add much to the review, but have one question:


 * In the citations (see # 66), you have included the full bibliographic details (Gibbons, Verna Hale (1998). Jack Judge: The Tipperary Man. West Midlands: Sandwell Community Library Service. ISBN 1 900 689 073), where all the other citations seem to use abbreviated format in citations, then full format in references. Is there a reason for this? My suggestion would be to move the full details to the references section and use abbreviated form in the citation to maintain consistency. Also, there is no page number for this citation.

That is all I have at the moment. I will keep looking for those pesky hyphens and dashes. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Can I reply here?) I just steamrollered a load more hyphens --> dashes using AWB, and I've moved the ref. I don't have a page number for it, as I don't personally have a copy, but I might try to search an online copy. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see Jim's exchanged the ref for a different two now. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hartfelt
Having myself today requested a peer review, I thought I should conduct one. Overall, I am favorably impressed with your article, but there is of course room for improvement. I have no expertise in your subject, and my comments reflect a single, uninterrupted read-through without written notes.

(1) Obviously, you have written with British background, spellings, and style. You might remember, however, that many of your English-language readers will be Americans, etc. and ask yourself whether you sometimes take too much for granted for non-British readers (as in not immediately identifying the sitting King in the royal family section, in discussing the maneuvers of government formation, and in assuming familiarity with the women's movement in England).

(2) Consider the flow of your outline. Does it make sense, for example, to interject "propaganda" between newspapers and magazines. Maybe propagana should go before or after both or be in its own category. There may be other such items. Given that you cover a grab-bag of topics, your effort will benefit from having the most logical sequence, creating the greatest flow. Should royal family go before government? Has more color and might be of more human interest to more readers.
 * moved propaganda left monarchy after government ✅

(3) I suggest streamlining the introduction and making it more inviting. Eg, remove the stuff about the Tsar and the qualification concerning women's issues. Make it agree with your outline.
 * Required per MOS

(4) The royal family section would be improved by stating who the sitting king was at the outset. ✅ by Jarry

(5) There are many formal items needing attention. These includes seeming inconsistencies in spelling out or not spelling out numbers (see fifty one v. 17 in same section); method of giving year spans; extra spaces or missing spaces in punctuation around footnotes, etc. It also seemed to me that there are sentences that should be broken in two. ✅

(6) I am not familiar with the two-tier footnote approach and don't really care for it. At a minimum, might it not be better to include some of the shorter ones in the text itself, rather than divert readers into the footnotes?
 * One added into the text the others are better off as notes I believe ✅

(7) Question: Given all the ships sunk, were there really so few deaths as you give.


 * Checked the source almost 15,OOO in the Merchant Navy does not seem a small amount ✅

(8) Suggestion:  Find a way to discuss Winston Churchill's role during the war, as he is such an important and familiar figure to so many.

(9) I like your additional information links. Should there be more?
 * Added as many as possible ✅

I hope the foregoing is of some help to you, and that you get some comments from people with more substantive expertise! Good luck from here. I am going to go back into the article and make one small editing change. Hartfelt (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah good, I was starting to worry about that whole in my schedule for tomorrow. :) I agree with most of the above, and particularly the outside approach ones (1, 2 and 4). (6) I'm not so sure about (include in the text itself?); and though Churchill is famous as a person, he really didn't feature enough in these adventures to realistically justify (8). Point (3) arguably goes against MoS guidelines, but I do get where you're coming from. (5) I will correct and (7) and (9) I will have to research tomorrow. Certainly points to think about there, appreciated. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jarry: Just wanted to clarify my point on footnotes.  I am focused on the nb footnotes, which are textual rather than citations.  Some are so short that they could be kept in the text, in a parentheses or worked into text, rather than diverting the reader into the footnotes to see a little piece of text.  Then the reader has to check a footnote to the footnote.  Hartfelt (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I follow. The problem is that a couple really are neccessary, so you'd never be able to get rid of them all. But I'll give it a go. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jarry: Re Churchill -- If Dardanelles caused govt to fall and Churchill responsible for Dardanelles, doesn't Churchill deserve mention? Also impt in naval readiness.  You're the expert, but I think you would make your article more accessible by working him in a little, as compared to the forgotten figures who are now the whole focus.  Just a thought.  Hartfelt (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am by no means an expert, but the problem here is that there is a real temptation - that both Jim and I have been suppressing - to launch into accounts of the various battles and raids (such as in the Dardanelles). But I'm sure we could mention him briefly though. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments I have done some I believe Jarry is working on the others --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Jarry/Jim: I see you have been at work, but hope you won't mind some addtl thoughts, for what they are worth.

(1) My question about few deaths at sea related to the 900 or so "civilian" deaths. Is that an accurate figure?
 * Yes according to the source there is another figure of 14,000 for the merchant navy which is seperate from civilian deaths --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(2) Churchill. Obviously, I'm just one reader, but I wanted to know more about Churchill. Without discussing the Dardannelles expedition in any detail, couldn't it be mentioned that Churchill was behind it, which you say caused the government to fall. Also, in the Navy section, why not mention that Churchill had emphasized preparedness before the war so the navy was well prepared, but he led the navy and army into the Dardanelles exp & lost his job. Also, his service thereafter in the army could be mentioned. In that connection, you have a single sentence about service by MPs. Should that be expanded? What was consequence -- did they remain in Parliament or have to resign? Was Churchill the most prominent? It is, of course, your article but I think you could make it more reader-friendly if you wove a little Churchill into it.
 * We already have the Winston Churchill and Winston Churchill in politics: 1900-1939 articles which cover him in detail --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(3) Because your article is necessarily a "grab bag," it necessarily has flow problems (unlike an article that has a strong time-line). I think you could help this with some attn to transitions. Why not, for example, start the Monarchy section with a topic sentence like "World War I led to profound changes for Briatin's royal family, caused by their close ties to Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm." Something to reorient the reader's attn to a new subject and tell them why it's a topic of interest.

(4) The Pankhurst gang. This reader wants to know who all the Pankhursts were -- sisters, cousins, mother/daughter? Seems striking that they were on both sides of the divide.
 * The danger is writing the History of the Pankhursts article which has been a problem all the time --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can make room for a note about which one was the mother and which two the daughters. Duly ✅. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, keep up the good work. Over & out, hoping this is of some use. (I'm going into the article to make a specific change; feel free to revert.) Hartfelt (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Jarry/Jim: I have belatedly focused on fact that you have a subsection on recruitment and draft; then a section on CO. Why not combine them into a single section addressing recruitment, draft, and CO all in one place under an appropriate heading. As it is, draft is mentioned in the subsection, then again and more informatively in the CO section. Also, the mention of parliament members in the military where it now resides is rather disruptive of the flow of the government section. Prior treatment was less disruptive. Hartfelt (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Jim's moved the bits to their own section, and I've commented out the fact for now. We'll see how that develops. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jarry/Jim: I see you have made many expansions and improvements (e.g., discussion of the role of the royal children in the war). I also want to note that there are some very nice parts to the article, e.g., the nice meshing of graphics and text regarding the Tsar and the zeppelins. Of criticisms, you may have heard more from me than you want to. If so, I apologize. Two last comments:

(1) The conscription section does not hang together for me. The Jan-March-May dates seem out of whack; the statements about married-single seem out of whack. Someone should pin this down and straighten it out. What was the date of the Act cited? When did policies change? Could married men be drafted or not?

(2) More important, please forgive me for saying frankly that I find the introduction off-putting. It seems to me rather disjointed, jumping around, and would not encourage me to drive on into the article. I urge you to spend some time to polish it. Shorten it some if you can, but in any event give it a better, more inviting flow. I have been tempted to try something myself, but it's your article and you can do a better job than I can if you put your mind to it. Remember, you only have one chance to make a first impression. I reacted negatively to the introduction when I read it first, and I still do.

Congrats on a worthwhile and improving article. Best of luck from here. Hartfelt (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.
Very good work. Just a few initial comments for now: Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * The opening sentence in the lead doesn't sit well with me. "United Kingdom during World War I (1914–1918) was one of the Allied Powers" - this seems to be saying that World War I was one of the Allied powers. Could this be tweaked? ✅
 * It should be clarified in the lead when H. H. Asquith is mentioned that he was PM. Same with George. ✅
 * Government
 * "and the internal divisions within British politics that had plagued the pre-war years continued." - requires a cite.
 * That's me. Should be in here somewhere (looks down at tome in front of him). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't find it, so removing. Not integral to the article anyhow. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "failed Gallipoli Campaign in the Dardenelles, when many thousands of men had been lost for very little perceived gain" - "many" --> "several". ✅
 * It should be clarified exactly when George took over as PM. ✅
 * I think I've taken care of the few in this section, but remember that Acts of law should be in italics.
 * ✅, I think. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review I think between Jarry and myself we have covered them all --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)