Talk:Middlesex Regiment alien labour units

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kimikel talk 01:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that during the First World War the British army deployed companies of aliens to France?

• Source: Although all eight were described as "Alien" companies, the originals were formed from the sons of foreign nationals, however from 1918 actual foreign nationals were used to form three companies , see eg: "the Director of Labour in France was informed that all Russians and other aliens whom 'it was not desirable to retain with fighting units' were to be sent to the Middlesex Regiment base depot at Etaples. Apart from the Russians, they were to be posted to the Middlesex Infantry Labour Companies ... This enabled three more Middlesex Labour companies to be formed." from: Messenger, Charles (30 April 2015). Call to Arms: The British Army 1914-18. Orion. p. 121. ISBN 978-1-78022-759-7.

• ALT1: ... that during the First World War "the queerest battalion in the British Army" did no fighting? Source: "Only in September 1916 did one of the battalions (perhaps in ignorance of the second) become the focus of sarcastic press attention. Headlined 'The Kaiser's Own', the London Evening Standard ran an article about the 'Queerest Battalion in the British Army'" from: Emden, Richard van (15 August 2013). Meeting the Enemy: The Human Face of the Great War. A&C Black. pp. 246–249. ISBN 978-1-4088-3981-2. and "This unit is not a combatant unit" from: "Middlesex Regiment, 30th Battalion : Volume 91: debated on Thursday 8 March 1917". Hansard. Retrieved 26 August 2024.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ivan Palmaw

Created by Dumelow (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 875 past nominations.

Dumelow (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I certainly think Alt 2 is more interesting as a hook, bot both are brilliant. What a fascinating read! No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Middlesex Regiment alien labour units/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dumelow (talk · contribs) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 08:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@Dumelow: Article meets GA criteria and I will pass it. I made some minor changes. What I have is some questions:

1. Any idea why the Middlesex Regiment was chosen?
2. The company size seems very large - twice the size of an infantry company. Was this normal for a labour company?
3. Do we know when the battalions were demobilised?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for the review and pass Hawkeye7. I haven't seen any reasoning as to why the Middlesex were chosen, I suspect having a headquarters in London may have had something to do with it. I've added a note on company sizes. I struggled to find a date for disbandment of the companies (frustratingly the combatant companies disbandments seem to be covered by the regimental history of the war but not the labour companies. I think labour units were exempted from the requirement to keep war diaries also), but you can track the general rate of demobilisation through the Army Lists, I've added some detail on this to the article - Dumelow (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)