Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yeomanry Cavalry/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2018 [1].

Yeomanry Cavalry[edit]

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the history of the British yeomanry from its formation in 1794 during the French Revolutionary Wars until its amalgamation into the Territorial Force in 1908. A uniquely aristocratic institution, it was retained after the Napoleonic Wars for its utility as a mounted police force, gaining notoriety for its role in the Peterloo Massacre. It struggled to justify itself militarily, and survived in the late 19th century largely due to the wealth and political influence of its leadership. It found a renewed purpose as mounted infantry, much to the distaste of those members who remained wedded to the cavalry tradition, following the failure of the regular army in the Second Boer War. The article received some attention in a peer review (before this article was moved to its current name), and more thorough scrutiny, including a full image review, in a successful MILHIST A-Class assessment. I am aware of one potential probem with the sourcing: Mileham's The Stirlingshire Yeomanry Cavalry and the Scottish Radical Disturbances of April 1820 was published in the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, but not having access to this in JSTOR, I used a copy published on http://www.balfronheritage.org.uk/home. Whilst I'm certain the venue fails FAC standards for sourcing, the actual source document does, I believe, pass muster. Factotem (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN11 is incomplete
Not sure in what ways it was incomplete. I've added website name and founder name as publisher. Is that enough, or is it still missing something?
  • Hansard should be italicized
Done
  • Mileham 1985 should include full details of the original source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which source you're referring to here. I've added issue and page number information to the JSTOR element. I've also put in a RX request to see if I can get the page numbers for the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research copy of the original document. Hopefully I can dispense with the balfronheritage.org.uk link altogether. Factotem (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that Mileham's article was split over two editions of the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research. I've added all the info to the single cite in the bibliography, but it's not possible to add to different JSTOR refs, so I've recorded the second as a hidden comment for now. I'll fix this when I know the results of the RX request. Factotem (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RX came up trumps. I've updated the ref for the actual JSAHR document, added both editions to the bibliography, and removed the url for the balfronheritage website. Factotem (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR and believe it meets the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

I also reviewed this article at ACR and believe it meets the FA criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

I originally usurped the article Yeomanry, which is a general history of the yeomanry from formation to present day. When it became apparent that I was actually writing a sub-article dealing with a specific period of the yeomanry history, my edits were spun off to create this article, and the yeomanry article was restored to the version before I started.
Ok - I don't know why this can't be seen from the page history. Did you do a cut n'paste move without saying so?
No. I put in a request at WP:RM and one of the editors there did the move. Factotem (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for this to be checked by an expert, also my new point at the bottom. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the editor who did the move, so hopefully they will be able to allay your concerns on this matter. Factotem (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, he blames a technical glitch. I think you should add a note to the article talk explaining where the first version came from, & that will sort it. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done with this edit Factotem (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that Yeoman's first mention had "Yeomanry Cavalry" - I don't know if it's part of the FA requirements, but a check on missing links to the article should be done - basic housekeeping (and views promotion).
As I see it, this is a sub-article for Yeomanry, so that's where the incoming links will originate. Links in other articles that mention the yeomanry will logically link to the main article. I see you linked to this article in the Yeoman article, whereas I would have said that the more logical link there would be to Yeomanry.
Well I hadn't looked at Yeomanry, but no I do, there's no link to this there either in the first two sections, with "descended from volunteer cavalry regiments. ....In the 1790s, the threat of invasion of the Kingdom of Great Britain was high, after the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. To improve the country's defences, volunteer regiments were raised in many counties from yeomen." Only a "see also" that ought to be a "main". Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edited Yeomanry to give this article a bit more exposure. Factotem (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that in view of the unusual nature of these units, and the frankly rather limited extent of their actual military engagements, it would be better to abandon the usual unit article layout, and put all or most of 5 Recruitment, 6 Popular perception and 7 Funding, remuneration and terms of service before the history. Really they are more interesting, and I found reading the history gave rise to many questions that were only answered (and very well so) much further down.
I'm not sure about this, and think there will be issues however we cut it. Certainly, the "Perceptions" section relies on knowledge of the yeomanry's activities, so logically it should come after the historical narrative. The first para of the recruitment section also becomes problematic, mentioning as it does Peterloo, the Swing Riots, the Chartist disturbances and the yeomanry's dual role as police force and military auxiliary. I'm hesitant to introduce these without first explaining in some detail their relevance. This is especially the case, I think, when it comes to the yeomanry's role. I think the common perception (certainly mine before I started) is of the yeomanry is as a military force, and its role in policing is less well-known. I'd be interested in knowing some specifics about what questions you had, and also the opinions of other reviewers on this.
1) ""Nevertheless, the yeomanry's continued existence owed more to its significant representation in Parliament.." - meaning MPs who were members? Or had been? Or a general class sympathy?" and 2) "It would be good to have a section giving a clearer idea of the typical service requirements of this part-time force. Did they do annual excercises etc? Also were you able to leave at any time? In 1870 "basic training and drill requirements were laid down.." - so what were they? By 1905 we have plans with "the requirement that they should abandon their civilian lives for the six months of training considered necessary for them to be effective in such a reserve role". How did/would that work? All in one go? Paid?" were questions I found the answer for lower down. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. The current structure may well be ill-considered, but it was not unconsidered. However it is structured, there will, I think, be the same issue of touching on aspects that are discussed in more detail later. The most obvious example, as mentioned above, is the first paragraph on recruitment. The "Funding..." section, also, references the confused legislation discussed in the history narrative and aid to the civil power which forms a significant part of that narrative. The current structure attracted no comments in PR and ACR, and as far as I can see, restructuring would only result in an alternative way of sequencing the narrative rather than improving it. If other reviewers take issue here at FAC, then I would consider a rewrite, but the time and effort required for that is significantly more than the polishing that is appropriate at FAC. If this is grounds to oppose this candidacy, then so be it. I still appreciate the input. BTW, I understand that the above represent the examples I requested, but note c, I think, at the end of the statement, clarifies what "significant representation in Parliament" is referring to, and the source does not go into details about what "basic training and drill requirements were laid down". Factotem (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1818 and 1855, the peak years of its employment in support of the civil power, the yeomanry was on average called out for approximately 26 days per year." What does the last bit mean? Individual units somewhere were called out? Annual average for all units?
Individual units somewhere. The source states "...the force spent cumulatively at least 960 days on duty: approximately 26 days a year for this 37-year period." Not sure I see the problem with the current wording. Do you have any suggestions?
Well, I was unclear what was being said. I'm not sure the source is entirely clear either. Maybe "there were on average approximately 26 days per year when a yeomanry unit was called out". Or just quote the source. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-written to "units of yeomanry were on duty somewhere for approximately 26 days per year on average." Factotem (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'm not entirely sure his Scottishness is worth mentioning really - I see someone at the A class review wanted it. His dying in a cavalry charge a few years later might be. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the false title. I added the additional information about Berkeley and Airlie as a result of an ACR comment. I'm ambivalent about whether this info is kept or not; anyone who's curious can follow the link. I don't think it useful to add that Airlie died in a cavalry charge. For one thing, the source I used doesn't mention it, and for another he was leading a regular cavalry regiment, so it's not really relevant in an article about the yeomanry.
That he commanded a regular cavalry regiment is surely relevant to his comment? Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've removed "Scottish peer" and added that he was an experienced cavalry officer, then adjutant to a yeomanry regiment and later killed leading the 12th Lancers (my error - the source did mention it). Factotem (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the big image, the "Recruitment" para needs splitting.
Done.
  • "Members of the Beaufort family" actually the Somerset family - "members of the Somerset family headed by the Duke of Beaufort" perhaps?
Amended to state that "Dukes of Beaufort served with the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars for over 150 years..."
  • "by 1892 all but one troop of the Middlesex Yeomanry were recruited in London" - not entirely surprizing given the majority of the couunty had already been absorbed by London sprawl.
The statement supports the fundamental point of that para, that recruitment was increasingly urban. Is there anything specific that needs to be addressed here?
  • In general there are links missing, and some repeated. I have added some - mostly peers and counties.
Some of the links added were duplicates, which I removed. I did, when writing this article, look into finding links to the peers you added links for, but there was nothing in the source to establish with certainty a link between the name given in the source and the article linked to. It seemed to me to be a bit of an assumption, and straying into WP:OR to add those (I left the ones you added, though). I also try to avoid links that are not relevant to the text in the link. For example, " Royal Midlothian Yeomanry Cavalry Races" refers to a horse race event, so I'm not sure that linking Midlothian is all that useful (but also left that one in). I do try and link wherever it seems relevant, though, and I'm not sure I see any grievous underlinking. Could you give me some examples, please?
Well, you seem to have removed most of them. If you trust your source as to the name and the date, then identifying the peer, whether with WP or other sources, is hardly OR. Other Windsor, 6th Earl of Plymouth was certainly the only "Lord Plymouth" in 1832, and indeed the bio article mentions his involvement with the Worcestershire Yeomanry. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have removed all duplicate links, and the dup link checker doesn't report any more. Lord Plymouth's WP article threw up a number of red flags that dissuaded me from linking him based on that article (it refers without sources to a non-existent yeomanry "division" which fought in a foreign country where no yeomanry unit was ever deployed), though I confess I could have done a better job researching off-wiki in this case, and your point about fixing them by dates alone is a good one. I've re-checked the article and believe that the two links you added account for all linkable but previously unlinked people. Factotem (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - we have his splendid obituary from The Gentleman's Magazine if any doubt lingers. They don't write them like that any more. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Seeing that earlier led to my confession above. I just wasn't sure how far we are permitted to go in establishing links that are not explicitly made in the source, and I erred on the side of caution for both Plymouth and Chesham. Is that the links issue settled, or is the article still deficient in your opinion? Factotem (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are more, especially in the last section, but I won't push it. Imo, if a place is worth mentioning, it is worth linking. Not everybody knows that Midlothian is not in Cornwall. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly finished - more later All done now. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Factotem (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Don't understand what you're asking for here. There is already a {{main}} hatnote to Yeomanry at the top of the article. Are you saying that I should ad another hatnote to the disambig page? If so, why, when it links to the article already hatnoted? Factotem (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have a redirected disam page for your title that goes to another page. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a redirect that I created, nor do I understand this aspect of WP. I've changed the target on that redirect page from Yeomanry to Yeomanry Cavalry. Is that what was needed? Factotem (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to Support - all my points adequately covered, & the article meets FA criteria. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo[edit]

This is in my expertise Fifelfoo (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Post chartist myth of a Clean Wehrmacht issues, you did read for them? WWII: NW Europe (war rape, camp liberation the concern), Palestine, Syria, Malaya (political actions of military forces the concern)
Not an issue here, I believe, as the Yeomanry Cavalry never served overseas in the time period with which this article is concerned. Individual yeomen served with the Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa during the Second Boer War, but the Imperial Yeomanry at that time was a separate organisation. The first overseas service performed by the yeomanry came during the First World War, but by that time they had lost their status as a distinct organisation and were part of the Territorial Force. I'm not aware of any actions by the yeomanry during that period that would require the type of coverage demanded by the activities of German forces in WWII, and that period is anyway outside the scope of this article. Factotem (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you're trimming, do keep the issue of "santising" accounts in mind. If there's anything in HQRS unsanitary mentioned of equivalent WEIGHT to the "aftermath / heritage" material you're otherwise mentioning, the unsanitary material ought also go in. I'll ask you to ping me when you've trimmed? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little surprised given the topic that the bibliography is so grognard in publisher rather than social history, particularly to coverage 1850? This concern is motivated by the MILHIST concern regarding Clean hands.
I'm sorry. I don't understand this at all. Factotem (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Bugle identified a trend of poor sourcing and research in relation to military history. This trend is caused in part by editor's use of non-scholarly sources that ignore aspects of the subject, such as "grognard" or militaria publications. This can result in "the more extreme example, a commander of an SS death squad "worked (...) to reduce atrocities committed"." The same process which causes this in relation to WWII articles about Germany can be present in any military history article. I would ask the same question on Neil Armstrong below if I reviewed it. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm a little confused. You state below that the central sources used are appropriately HQRS. The vast bulk of this article is indeed built around the works of Dr George Hay, Professor Ian Beckett and Dr. Patrick Mileham. I cannot find a bio for Mileham online, but he was considered enough of an expert on the British military to be asked to give evidence to Parliament in relation to the debate on the military implications for the independence for Scotland, in which he lists some of his credentials. I'm not sure that these can be considered non-scholarly and I have not seen anything to suggest that they have ignored any important aspects of the subject, nor have I of their work. Factotem (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I was asking you. You've read the HQRS, you'd know if there were any weighty unsanitary matters. I trust your answers. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of PRIMARIES totally appropriate
  • Social history: Yeoman's wives? Very happy on class by sampling. Post 1919 readings for class in yeomanry? Any evidence from your HQRS of weight?
Nothing in the sources about yeomen's wives. A detailed analysis of the composition of the yeomanry is only provided by Hay, whose account ends at 1914, and again, the period from 1908 is outside of this article's scope. I'm afraid I don't understand the question about weight. Factotem (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to this question, and questions of potential conduct on deployment in North West Europe, how is the period from 1908 outside the article's scope when there are 1200 words of Heritage dealing specifically with the post 1908 period including regiments, composition, deployment? I'm finding it hard to reconcile a "scope" issue here with the current weight in heritage of assignment of yeomanry regiments to specific deployments in WWII? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an Aftermath section that is I believe expected of all such articles. Having said that, I see your point. It does go into a little too much detail. I'll look into trimming that down to produce a more summarised account. Would that fix the issue for you? Factotem (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me when you're done so I can reread! Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fifelfoo: I've trimmed the Heritage section down to less than 500 words. Let me know what you think. Factotem (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It reads great to me, focuses well on the "cavalry" issue, and reflects the WEIGHT of the heritage section to the body of the article. Good work! Fifelfoo (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the use of Beckett Hay and Mileham as central sources to be appropriate HQRS for topic
  • Decline reason "£5 allowance (equivalent to £500 in 2016)" was this equivalence in your source, or did you compute it? In your source did it give the nature of the computation (inflation by income, commodity bundle, %gdp)?. I am very tetchy about these computations as original research given the difference of Measuring economic worth over time, and I assume closers will consider my tetchyness in this regard. My fundamental belief is that editor choice regarding correct computation is original research: let scholars be damned for their shitty decisions in scholarship. If your secondaries don't support the text the simplest way of resolving this is to remove all modern computations.
These are all done automatically using Template:Inflation. I'm not aware of any problems with WP:OR doing this, but happy to be corrected. Factotem (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited the inflation template now Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "original research" issue is that measuring economic worth over time is really quite hard and requires analytical decisions about appropriate measures. Why did you choose UK-GDP a gdp deflator, instead of UK which is a retail price (ie: consumer price) index? When our sources do it for us it is easy, we can quote them. However, when we make the decision I argue that this is clearly original research. I hope this explains it, and lets you respond. Based on your response we'll know if the article needs editing, or if I need to strike my concern. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per the instructions at Template:Inflation, I used UK-GDP for expenditure by the government and the wealthy, and I used UK for personal expenditure. I thought that these would be useful to the reader in understanding the scale of expenditure, but I'm not precious about them and would not fight to retain them. I'm curious as to why this template is available, though, if it's use is inherently WP:OR. Factotem (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree that inflation templates or indices raise all sorts of difficult issues, which WP editors generally ignore. But it is still good to make a stab at it. I think the solution is to explain carefully in a note where the figure comes from, and perhaps even give an alternative calculated on another basis, and a note of caution. An explained arithmetical calculation is not OR. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the response. In future I'd recommend adding the inflation citation template for the inflation you used at the end of the sentence (if there's a single use), or at the end of the paragraph for multiple uses in a paragraph. The template is available because some people don't understand OR, or the problems of measuring worth over time in economies, or economic history; and, a large popular demand exists for it among editors. I have long disagreed with the "simple calculation" argument when it comes to inflation, but I'm not going to oppose the article given the GDP-deflator is the "correct," one to use for the gentry. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise supportive.
Drive-by: All these as clear as daylight, as usual! Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm afraid that the only point I understand is the one about the conversions of money to modern equivalents. These are all done automatically using Template:Inflation. I'm not aware of any problems with WP:OR doing this, but happy to be corrected. Factotem (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on my clarity, sorry, and will get back to the individual points to clarify. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Yeomanry_Cavalry/archive1&oldid=849581016"