Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Royal Gloucestershire Hussars

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Royal Gloucestershire Hussars

[edit]
Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

Royal Gloucestershire Hussars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another one from the shire. I did submit it for PR, but no-one was biting, and looking over some of the other PR requests, that avenue for review seems to be quite dead these days. I'm hoping that this article is good enough not to waste anyone's time in ACR, with a view to improving it to FAC standards. Two issues that I'm aware of concern the sources. I have looked and looked, but cannot find any ISBN for Frank Fox's history which was published in 1923 and recently reprinted in facsimile edition, nor can I find an ISBN for Murphy's official NZ history for the relief of Tobruk. Hope these are not issues for either ACR or FAC. FactotEm (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Royal_Gloucestershire_Hussars_badge_and_service_cap.jpg: the tag currently in use requires that you describe steps taken to try to determine authorship, and also include a US PD tag
Working on this one. FactotEm (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got lazy and simply replaced the image with a different, PD image sourced from the New York Public LIbrary FactotEm (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When/where was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does donation to the New York Public Library count as being published? FactotEm (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, although they might have details about its publication history. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will this NYPL catalog entry or this Google book be sufficient proof of a 1910 publication date? FactotEm (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify, those two links relate to the Vinkhuijzen collection as a whole. It's unlikely that any publication date for the individual imprint can ever be identified; the information on the NYPL page about the collection states "Source notes for many of the images are lacking...", and there is no source information on any of the NYPL pages for this specific image. FactotEm (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:An_officer_of_the_Royal_Gloucestershire_Hussars.jpg needs a US PD tag
done. FactotEm (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When/where was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is, I don't know, that information is not available anywhere. The artist died in 1876, which is why I applied a {{PD-Art|PD-old-70}} tag. The image was taken from the Brown University digital collection on the basis that a scan of an out of copyright image garners no new copyright. Have I mis-understood any of this so far? If not, then can I apply a {{PD-US-unpublished}} tag on the basis that there is no publication information, or can I apply a {{PD-1923}} on the assumption that it was published, as looks likely, sometime before 1923, even if we don't know exactly when?
Does Brown have any details on publication history? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It states on the image that it was published by Lloyd Brothers & Co of 96 Gracechurch Street, London, and I have added information to the image description I found on the British Museum website which says that they occupied these premises between 1857 and 1867, so although I don't have an exact date, it appears to be no later than 1867. Is that good enough? FactotEm (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case the pre-1923 tag would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sergeants,_Gloucestershire_Hussars,_1896.jpg: given tag and attribution are incorrect - under US law a simple 2D reproduction of an existing image garners no new copyright, and details for the original are missing
Working on this one. FactotEm (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the image was taken from The Navy and Army Illustrated, published on 9 April 1896. Is it possible to simply apply a different copyright tag on the basis that it is obviously older than 70 years? FactotEm (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which tag you're referring to - there is a tag for life of the author plus 70 years, or there's one for pre-1923 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-1923}} seems appropriate. Will that do? FactotEm (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cavalry_watering_at_Mary's_Well_in_Nazareth_1918_(AWM_image_B00273).jpg: when/where was this first published?
Do not know. Is it not enough that the AWM source explicitly states that the image is "Copyright expired - public domain"?
The US PD tag currently in use claims a pre-1923 publication - you'd need to swap in a different tag if publication is unknown. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the license to {{PD-AustraliaGov}} and added some author info which states, with a source, that in 1918 the author was an official government photographer. FactotEm (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Updated commons with true author information. It's an image taken by an officer of No 1 Army Film & Photographic Unit, and sourced from the Imperial War Museum. The IWM asserts a non-commercial use restriction, which I know is not acceptable for our purposes, but did I read somewhere that images formerly subject to Crown copyright are PD when older than 70 years, which this one obviously is, regardless of what the IWM asserts? FactotEm (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New tag is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's all image issues resolved. Thanks for your patience and help. FactotEm (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria:. I've replaced the lead image again. I've added info to the commons page that dates the cap badge to no later than 1908, and on that basis applied a PD-UKGov license to the subject. Basically, the initials "IY" either side of the portcullis in the badge stand for Imperial Yeomanry, which ceased to exist in 1908 when it was amalgamated into the Territorial Force. When you get a chance, would you mind letting me know if that's all OK? Factotem (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, nice work with this article. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • some elements of the infobox do not appear in the body of the article, e.g. the motto, the colours and anniversaries
checkY removed all info from lead that is not sourced directly with cites or in the main narrative.
  • in the lead and on first mention in the body, link "battle honour"
checkY done.
  • irregular caps: "It fought in the Second action of the Es Salt" --> "It fought in the second action of the Es Salt" or " It fought in the Second Action of the Es Salt"
checkY
checkY
  • "was about 1,000 yeoman" --> "was about 1,000 yeomen"?
checkY
  • "close to the Lybian border" --> "close to the Libyan border"
checkY
  • "Lt-Col Birley" --> just "Birley" at this point per WP:SURNAME
checkY
  • "Major Trevor, who had...": do we know this officer's first name at all?
The only info I can find in my books or online are his initials. I've added them on first mention. I've also applied WP:SURNAME for Maj Trevor, although it looks odd, that being a common firstname.
  • "Pitman p. 48–49" --> "Pitman pp. 48–49"
checkY
  • same as above: "Neillands p. 82–84 & 86"
checkY
  • is there an OCLC number for the Fox work (I note you mention no ISBNs, but usually these works will have OCLCs instead)? They can be found here: [1]
checkY Brilliant! Did not know about that, and was concerned.
  • same as above for the Murphy work
checkY
  • "The Naval & Military Press Ltd": the "Ltd" isn't required here
checkY

Much appreciated. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is in good shape, and I have only the following comments:

  • The specific unit names in the first para of the lead and the early sections of the article shouldn't be in italics
    checkY
  • While not a big deal in this particular article, the material on how the unit was largely used as riot police in its early years would benefit from noting critiques of this practice: the Yeomanry appear to have been used by the upper class to suppress various reform movements and to defend the old order.
    As interesting as it is (I've already started researching it for my next WP project) I'm not sure I can work the wider political (and social) context of the yeomanry into this article in any meaningful, relevant way without going off topic. While there is certainly something to say about the yeomanry's socio-political context, the sum total of the RGH's minimal activity in this respect is pretty much all detailed in the article. All that I have left out is the fact that the Dodington Troop was sent away very soon after arriving in Bristol, and the Tetbury Troop appear to have stayed there a night and prevented any further pillaging in the area they were stationed, with no indication of what happened thereafter. Is "watch this space for my next project" an acceptable answer?
    Yes, this is an issue better covered in a broader-ranging article Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the personnel provided for the Imperial Yeomanry in 1901 volunteers for active service, or were they required to serve?
    Changed a word to show that they were volunteers.
  • Did the make-up of the regiment become more cosmopolitan over the 19th century?
    There's no information specifically about the RGH, but I added a paragraph about the changing social composition of the yeomanry in general around the time of the Boer War.
    That looks good Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Royal Gloucestershire Hussars was not obliged to serve overseas, but could volunteer to do so" - do we know how this worked in practice? (for example, did individual members of the regiment volunteer for or opt out of overseas service, and at what point was the regiment deemed to have volunteered for this duty?)
    Added a note to the ref (#43) explaining how the 'imperial obligation' worked in practice to allow territorial units to volunteer for service overseas.
    That looks very good, but can you please add a reference for this? Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "15th Army Corps" - I suspect that this should be XV Corps
    Changed.
  • It might be worth noting how the regiment operated in Egypt and the Palestine Campaign: were its men mounted infantry in practice, or did they usually fight as mounted cavalry?
    I've indicated for each battle whether the regiment fought as mounted infantry or cavalry where that information is given in the sources. I can only speculate that the Battle of Qatia was fought dismounted, so have not specified, and I weasled out of it for the action of 12 November by calling it a defensive action (again no info in the sources).
    Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Suffering more from sickness in the inhospitable environment " - I'd suggest explaining why the environment was so bad (eg, heat, humidity and malaria)
    Added information about high temperature and malaria problem.
  • When did the 1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars deploy to Austria and return to the UK?
    Added deployment date. I can tell you that they returned in 1947, but that's only because I read about it in the museum, and have no source for it.
  • What period was the 3rd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars active for? Do we know how many men were assigned to this unit given that it does seem to have existed in order to build dummy tanks (presumably only a handful)
    There's no information about how long they were active, but I've expanded the detail on what this unit did during the war, and how many men there were, sourced from the regimental association website.
  • The Post war section would benefit from noting the units the regiment was assigned to during this period. Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect it was the 43rd (Wessex) Infantry Division, but I don't have any sources for this. I've ordered Beckett's book on the Territorials, which will be arriving in the next week or so, but if that doesn't say, then I'm not sure where I can find this info.

Thanks for your help. I've not been able to address all your issues fully, but I hope I have done enough. Factotem (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those changes all look good, though please note my request for an extra reference above. Sorry for the slow reply as well - I was out of town for a few days. Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That info has been moved into a footnote and a ref added. Thanks for your help. Factotem (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM Placeholder. Will post comments shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link Cheltenham in first sentence and first mention in body
checkY
  • did the regt operate as mounted infantry at any stage during WWI? If so, perhaps mention both roles in the lead?
checkY
  • suggest "Sinai and Palestine Campaign; in the latter it fought..."
checkY
  • might be worth mentioning in the lead what primary armoured vehicles it operated in WWII and subsequently. Medium and light tanks in WWII, light vehicles, infantry and now tanks again?
checkY
  • "in Fairford and Cirencester, Stroudwater, Tetbury, Gloucester, Winterbourne and Stapleton, and Alveston" some of these are linked, others not?
checkY They were linked previously in earlier versions of the article, but I moved those to a refnote and forgot to re-link. Stroudwater is a backwater and has no article in WP.
  • if the yeomanry served as mounted infantry in South Africa, perhaps mention that when South Africa first comes up?
checkY
  • "a gGerman salient"
checkY
  • suggest "Army reserve" or "8th Army reserve"
checkY
  • "The three Ssquadrons"
checkY
  • any information/images available about the cap badge or formal/ceremonial uniform quirks?
  • I've added some quirky info about the regiment being ordered to grow moustaches, and the unusual way they wore the Hussar uniform, but don't think it's useful to try and describe the various changes in uniform, which were otherwise fairly standard. The info is actually provided in the source for the period to 1898, but it talks of replacing breeches with pantaloons with trousers, and I have no idea what the difference is or whether anyone would find that interesting, gives colours that are at odds with the images of the time, and generally I think this subject is better conveyed by the use of images. Is that OK?
  • The only cap badge image in commons had questionable licensing. I may, however, be able source an alternative either today or over the weekend.
Or not. I was hoping to take a picture of the regimental insignia on the war memorial, but for a couple of reasons that won't work. I will keep looking, but for this ACR I don't think I will be able to find an appropriately licensed image. Factotem (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Much appreciated. Factotem (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I think it might need a cap badge for FAC. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can understand that. Just have to figure out how to get one that won't fall foul of licensing issues. Thanks for your help. Factotem (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • "the regiment adopted a hussar uniform " - would be a good chance to directly link hussar
    checkY
  • "and a French invasion that never materialised" - could this be linked? (e.g. Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom or something like that?)
    checkY
  • "the regiment raised a second-line unit which remained in the UK and traded horses for bicycles in 1916" - this read a bit oddly to me; "and became a bicycle unit" or something like that?
    checkY for the lead. I would like to leave it as is when the subject is covered in the main narrative as I think it makes the prose a bit more elegant, though it could probably be better written as "swapped" rather than "traded" if that makes it any less odd for you.
  • "Following the war, the regiment was downsized and converted to the 21st (Royal Gloucestershire Hussars) Armoured Car Company" - "renamed" rather than "converted"? (it would make the first sentence of the next paragraph easier to follow)
    I'm not sure that "renamed" adequately conveys the process. It implies that only the name changed, but in actual fact the unit ceased to use horses and was equipped instead with armoured cars. "Convert" conveys this sense of change in a way that "rename" does not. An alternative would be to write "was converted to an armoured car company and renamed the 21st (Royal Gloucestershire Hussars) Armoured Car Company", but that's unnecessarily clunky I think.
  • "When it lost two commanders killed in action in quick succession" - "When it had two commanders killed in action..."? (would be cleaner)
    Would prefer to leave as is.
  • "British Prime Minister William Pitt made the first ever mention of yeoman cavalry" - presumably "first ever recorded mention"?
    checkY
  • "'fencible' cavalry consisting of 'gentlemen and yeomanry'" - should these be double speech marks as quotes? (as per the other quotes in the article)
    I wasn't quoting these, but using simple glosses to present unfamiliar terms, but I've removed them anyway and linked "gentlemen" so that anyone who is unfamiliar can find out more for all three.
  • "Powell Snell, a "gentleman of means and good position"" - unclear who this quote is coming from. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a straight lift from the source. I don't like naming the source a la "according to Wyndham-Quin" unless I'm specifically discussing different viewpoints according to sources - I think it breaks up the narrative flow - so I've just deleted the quotes.

Thanks. Hope I've answered to your satisfaction. Factotem (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Hchc2009 are you happy with the responses? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "all of the Gloucestershire yeomanry captains met in Petty France" - I'd advise "the village of Petty France", as there is a much more well known Petty France in London that it will be easily confused with.
  • Did not know that. Clarified the location.
  • "all members should grow moustaches "in the form of a carving knife"," - loved this bit!
  • Me too! Couple of the sources are 100 years or more old, and it was fascinating to see real class attitude seeping out of the pages.
  • "inspector general of the Imperial Yeomanry" - just to check, should that be "Inspector General" if it is a formal job title?
  • checkY
  • "The regiment was based at Brunswick Road in Gloucester at this time (the drill hall was demolished in 1934)." - felt a bit clunky, since the text doesn't mention the drill hall until the bit in brackets.
  • That was a drive-by edit. I don't like it myself, and the source almost certainly won't bear scrutiny in FAC. I'll discuss with the editor and see if it really needs to be there.
  • Deliberately ambiguous. The source does not say what troops they are, but they're probably Australian given that the source is. Not sure it's appropriate to say "not the Hussars" in the caption.

Thanks for your help. Hope I've addressed your commemnts, if not fully, at least satisfactorily. If there's anything there still that jeopardises the ACR, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. Factotem (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Royal_Gloucestershire_Hussars&oldid=820904559"