Wikipedia:Peer review/Horses in World War I/archive1

Horses in World War I

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take it to FAC at some point soon, and would like to know what else should be done before then. Comments on completeness/comprehensiveness are especially welcome, as there have been extensive talk page discussions about what should and should not be included.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

I'll take a look at the article and make some suggestions.

I would recommend tightening up the prose. You have several instances in which too much verbage is used and the information could be relayed in a more efficient form. Examples:

"Early in the war, cavalry skirmishes were not uncommon, and horse-mounted troops were widely used for reconnaissance." Try to avoid double negatives, "not uncommon".

I've tried to reword this. They weren't exactly common, but they weren't uncommon either.

"While Britain's cavalry were trained to fight both on foot and while mounted, most other European cavalry still relied on shock action."

Two uses of "while". The first is appropriate as you are comparing Britain's cavalry with the rest of Europe, but the second is not necessary, I'll remove it. Also what is "Shock action"? The term is used a couple of times and seems to be jargon that readers unfamiliar with the concept would not understand. Consider explaining or defining the term if you're going to use it.

I've linked to shock tactics, does this work or should I include an explanation in this article as well?

I think that's fine. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, they harassed retreating German forces in 1918 during the Hundred Days Offensive, sometimes using both horses and tanks in the same battle."

This sentence is a bit awkward, the "they" is referring to cavalry, if I understand the context correctly. Why, then, have the part about using both horses and tanks in the same battle? If your point is to discuss the importance of cavalry in battle it just seems a bit awkward to have the final portion of the sentence after the comma.

Split into two sentences and reworded a bit. Better?

"In the years following the war, most armies became mechanized, resulting in many of the original cavalry regiments being converted to armored divisions, and light tanks were developed to perform many of the cavalry's original roles."

This sentence is written in a passive voice. Also it seems like the allusion to light tanks simply repeats what is previously said in the sentence: cavalry regiments became mechanized. Consider rewording like this: "In the years following the war most armies became mechanized, which required cavalry regiments to be converted to armored divisions."

Changed, but added a "many" before "cavalry regiments".

"Upon reaching the Marne River and encountering the trench system, where cavalry was ineffective, horses became a liability"

Please explain how they became a liability. I understand that they were effective but what made them an actual liability? This isn't clear from the article thus far. Perhaps its clarified later in the article and I haven't gotten to it yet.

Reworded and removed the liability part. I don't have the source in front of me and don't remember what I was referring too with this wording.

I added a non-breaking space in the United Kingdom section. Check WP:NBSP for a guide and then make sure the rest of the article is in compliance. More to come.

I think I've fixed the spacing in the article, thanks to some help at the MILHIST ACR, but I may have mixed some. Dashes aren't my thing... :)

H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Allenby's forces crushed the Turkish armies, an action viewed by some cavalry tacticians as a vindication of cavalry's usefulness, but others point out that the Turks were outnumbered two to one by late 1918, and were not first-class troops even at the beginning of the offensive."

A couple issues with this sentence, first off it appears to run on with a couple of subjects. Consider breaking into two sentences. Also watch tense, "viewed" past tense, "point out" present tense. Also what is the intent behind, "...even at the beginning of the offensive."? I'm not sure what is trying to be communicated with that part of the sentence.

I've split this into two sentences and changed the tenses around. "At the beginning of the offensive" means just that - when the offensive began, the troops weren't first class, and it just got worse through the war. Do you have any suggestions on how to reword this.

I'd say "...even at the beginning of the offensive" is unnecessary information. They weren't first class troops period, no matter what point in the offensive. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.

The image in this section should be right justified since the horses and men are looking left. See WP:access for image placement. Usually try to put the images so that the subject is looking towards the text. It's a ticky tack thing but I got dinged on that in an FA nom once so I'll save you the trouble. Check images throughout for this.

I know this about images, but I've also seen people get comments about having too many images on the same side of the article, and there would be at least three in a row on the right side if I moved the image over. I'm going to leave it as is for the moment and see what consensus turns out to be at FAC. Thanks for the comment though.

Yep that's fine, it's one of those issues that some people really want to key in on, I could care less though. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the countries be wikilinked to articles about their involvement in WWI?

Where were you thinking to do this, in the lead or the individual sections? Or possible through see also templates at the top of each section?

I was thinking the first mention of each country in the lead and then in the article. This would comply with WP:LINK, or at least my interpretation of it. I don't know that adding see also templates would do it because the link is to the articles about each country during the War. I'll leave that up to you. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'll have to think about this. I don't want to get into the territory of overlinking. How about I'll think about it some more, and maybe bring it up to some other editors and see what they think?

"Prior to 1914, France and Russia expanded their mounted military units. On the side of the Central Powers, Germany added thirteen regiments of mounted riflemen, while Austria-Hungary also expanded their forces.[15] The Bulgiarian army also used cavalry"

Two things, is "Bulgiarian" a typo? I'm not familiar with this term. If it isn't then wikilinking to an article would be good. Second, "the Bulgiarian army also used cavalry" is a bit of an afterthought. Consider combining with one of the other sentences.

Whoops, that was supposed to be Bulgarian, as in people from Bulgaria. Thanks for catching that. I've combined it with the sentence before it, as they were part of the Central Powers.

"The attitudes of the French toward their horses created additional problems."

What follows this statement are examples of ill treatment of horses by the French. There isn't anything about their attitude toward the horses, it's about how the horses are treated. Also it appears that the "attitude" issues were early on in the war and that those changed later. Consider changing this sentence to better reflect the rest of the paragraph.

Reworded, changed attitudes to treatment. Also, I'm not sure why you feel that this attitude changed - the French used horses very little during the rest of the war, partially as a consequence of having many of their cavalry disabled during the early parts of the war. The fact that their lancers, whose entire training was on horseback, charged on foot was symptomatic of this problem.

Perhaps we're talking about the same thing, the treatment or attitude of the French changed through the course of the war because at the beginning they used them and towards the end they didn't (over-simplified for sure). I think we're on the same page, and "treatment" is better than "attitude".

What is "lance-against-lance"? This almost sounds like jousting, is that right?

I think this is being answered below, but please let me know if you need more information.

"In this battle, both sides used cavalry forces as strategic parts of their armies, and cavalry were included in engagements that continued through the end of the year."

The last part of the sentence after the comma has nothing to do with the first part. Consider breaking into two sentences.

Split into two sentences.

Check WP:QUOTE for MOS requirements on quotes. Such a short quote may not require a quote box. Understandable that you want to feature it so I'll leave that up to you.

Are you referring to the one in the US/Canada section or the one in the Australia/New Zealand section? Either way, both of these quotes are ones I want to highlight, so I would prefer to leave them pulled out, unless it violates MOS.

Sounds good, I was referring to the Canada and United States little quote about capturing the machine guns before a cavalry charge. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the United States Cavalry linked while the other countries' cavalry units are not? Consider either delinking (for consistency, or linking other countries' cavalry pages) or specifying the link to the WWI ideation of the US Cavalry, currently it links to a general article about the US Cavalry history, which is a bit broad.

Delinked, reworded slightly.

That concludes my prose review. I've gone through the Cavalry section. Overall I would keep an eye out for sentence structure, make sure the last half of the sentence fits with the firts half. Look for words that are unnecessary given the context of the sentence, this will help tighten up the writing and improve the flow of the article. I think the article is very far along and just needs a thorough copy edit to be ready. I'll read through the rest of the article and if I see anything glaring beyond what I've already suggested I'll bring it up. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the Allied forces section is a bit abrupt. What happened to alleviate the horse shortage? The reader is left without knowing how the situation was resolved.

I would love to include this information, but I honestly don't know how they resolved it. I would guess that they found a few horses here and there, maybe "borrowed" some from other units, and finished out the war with a shortage of horses. Considering how late in the war it was and how far ahead the Allied powers were, it is certainly possible that trouble moving their artillery didn't really bother them that much. This, however, is all OR until I can find a source that actually says it, which I haven't managed to yet.

You might want to consider moving the entire Procurement section up to above the Calvary section. It seems to fit better in chronological order. That's just my opinion though so take it for what it's worth.

Interesting thought. I'll bring it up on the talk page.

How did the lack of horses contribute to Germany's loss? Perhaps a one or two sentence explanation would help.

Tried to add in a bit of explanation, let me know what you think.

As a side note I want to tell you that I think the way you have presented this topic is fantastic. An underlying current through the article is the hardship and cost paid by horses in WWI. The suffering these animals endured is something I never fully appreciated and this article certainly conveys it without explicitly saying so. It is a fantastic example of how to communicate a message without coming right out and saying it. You should be commended for your treatment of the subject. Thank you for this important contribution. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 20:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all of your comments above. Writing this article definitely taught me a lot about WWI that was not covered in my high school and college history classes :) It's great to be able to combine my love of horses and my love of history, and I look forward to completing more articles like this. Thanks again for your comments, the article has improved because of them and will certainly have an easier time at FAC when it eventually gets there. Dana boomer (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of replies, shock action is basically the traditional cavalry tactics of the charge with lance or sword, Richard Holmes contrasts shock action versus fire action. Perhaps we ought to spell this out more. Another term commonly used for basically the same thing is the French arme blanche. As for "lance-against-lance" (some sources have simply "lance-on-lance" is basically trying to show the last vestige of traditional cavalry v cavalry action, in the midst of a war dominated by machine gun and artillery. David Underdown (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the Shock action term is not one I am familiar with. I am admittedly not a WWI buff but it's important to make sure the article is readable to as wide an audience as possible. One term doesn't make it unreadable of course but it would be good to perhaps spell it out a bit. The lance-on-lance term seems to be a bit of jargon. I understand the meaning but for the uninitiated I fear they would think that as recent as WWI, there were soldiers riding around with lances having at each other. Thanks for the clarification. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 22:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some linking and tweaking per your above comments after dinner, but wanted to answer this one right now: they were actually "riding around with lances having at each other" (love that phrasing by the way!). I know it sounds crazy, but as recently as 1914/1915 military commanders still thought that sending two bodies of men at each other with sharp sticks constituted modern warfare. In this case it was two lancer (lance-using) units, one German and one British, attacking each other. Hope this helps; as I said, more later. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, learn something new every day. I figured warfare would have advanced from the middle ages but I guess I'm wrong. I do remember hearing about mounted cavalry charging at entrenched machine guns and tanks. But lances? Seriously? Well there you go. The article is very strong by the way, just some fine tuning of the prose and it's ready. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lances had changed slightly, by this time they were a simple straight wooden pole, often ash or bamboo I think, rather than the sort of thing you see people using in recreations of mediaeval jousts (partly since firearms had seen off armour), but yeah, no real great advance in technology (take a look at File:Memorial to officers and men of 9th Lancers who died in WWI.jpg and File:Memorial to officers and men of 9th Lancers who died in WWI-detail.jpg). Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts the main British commander in the Boer War had tried to get the lance relegated to ceremonial use only within the British Army, when he was Commander-in-Chief of the Forces from 1900 - 1904 but when John French, 1st Earl of Ypres (a cavalryman) too the equivalent position (now renamed Chief of the Imperial General Staff in 1912, the lance was reinstated for use in the field. I seem to remember that Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig was one of the prime proponents of its reintroduction. All of which (arguably) explains a lot about the main British commanders during the war... David Underdown (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And all the while, the US Cavalry had been refining firearms to be used from Horseback from the Mexican War forward...we do love our firearms...! Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]