Talk:British Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article British Army has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article split[edit]

As the article Structure of the British Army was way too long and contained two totally different topics I split the article in two parts: The first part, containing a long listing of all the existing British Army units by corps, precedence, etc. I left at the original article (even though that listing has nothing to do with the structure of the army). The second part that followed beneath the first contained the complete operational structure of the British Army. This second part I copied to the new and correctly named article: Operational Structure of the British Army. noclador (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No numbers or percentages given[edit]

The BEF was approx one third of the British army. What size was the BEF? BY Dec 1940 the British Army was 2 million strong and fully equipped. No mention of this. 90.198.219.229 (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The BEF was approx 316,000 strong at its peak in 1940 before Dunkirk.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on British Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Army 2020 Refine[edit]

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-12-15/HCWS367/

ACSilver (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

British Army was founded in 1707.[edit]

The British Army was founded in 1707. The English Army like the Scottish Army ceased to exist when the statesmen of both countries agreed to create Great Britain. The British Army and the English Army are two different armies. How you can conclude that the English Army is the British Army and the British Army is the English Army is beyond the realms of reality, logic and reason. Royal Scots was the oldest and most senior infantry regiment of the line of the British Army until 2006 having been raised in 1633. How is it possible for a so called Army founded in 1660 to have had a regiment older than the army itself? In 1707 when both the Scottish Army and the English Army ceased to exist both of their regiments formed the core of the new army called the BRITISH Army. Meenmore (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

why does a British Army regiment have a battle honour called "Namur 1695" ? What happened to the English regiments of foot on 1st May 1707. The British Army is the existing English army with the 10 Royal Scottish units incorporated.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
A Scottish person can claim the British Army is the existing Scottish army with English units incorporated, both claims are ridiculous. In 1707, the armies of both Scotland and England ceased to exist when both countries agreed to transfer their already established regiments to a then new army called the British Army. Meenmore (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The Royal Scots were in French service from 1633 until 1661. The 1660 date is when the King of England, Scotland and Ireland authorised the existence of a standing army in peace and war. The regiments which comprised this army (which had much greater autonomy than they do today) were raised on (paid for by) the English, Scottish or Irish establishment, but they served together under the same monarch. The Union of the Parliaments in 1707 did nothing to change this, other than that the English and Scottish regiments were paid from the combined revenues of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Are you going to argue for the continued existence of a separate Irish Army after 1707? Opera hat (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
The English regiments were transferred to the British Army in 1707 making the English Army cease to exist. Meenmore (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Have you got any kind of source to support your interpretation? Opera hat (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you also claiming the British Army is the English Army and the English Army is the British Army? The British Army is the British Army and it was founded in 1707. It is impossible for the British Army to have been founded before the actual state was founded. Meenmore (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Again: a standing army was established in 1660. The regiments that made up this army were maintained on the English, Scottish and Irish establishments. These regiments owed their allegiance to King Charles II and his successors. Unions of Parliaments had no effect on this. The Army was established in 1660. Now it is up to you to provide sources that say otherwise. Opera hat (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you asking me to provide sources to prove Scottish and English regiments were transferred to the then newly founded British Army in 1707? It is impossible to state the British Army was founded prior to 1707. The British Army is the army of Great Britain, Great Britain was formally established in 1707, this fact is well documented and roundly renowned. Meenmore (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you asking me to provide sources to prove Scottish and English regiments were transferred to the then newly founded British Army in 1707? Yes, I am.
It is impossible to state the British Army was founded prior to 1707. And yet somehow every history of the British Army does so.
Great Britain was formally established in 1707: no, Great Britain is the name of an island. The regiments raised on this island can collectively be termed "British". You need to stop thinking that the 1707 Union of the Parliaments is a relevant subject here. The Army was and is loyal to the monarch and not to Parliament, and since 1603 the monarch of England and Scotland has been the same person (and James VI and I deliberately called himself "King of Great Britain", which literally he was). So "British Army" is an appropriate term for the regiments serving the monarch of England and Scotland before 1707 and after. Opera hat (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
In 1707, Scottish statesmen and English statesmen created a new State, they named the state Great Britain. Prior to 1707, Great Britain was a geographical term. However, no one can deny a new state was established in 1707 and the name of that state is Great Britain. The claim that the British Army was founded as the English Army in 1660 is a falsehood. The position is the Scottish Army and the English Army both ceased to exist when their regiments transferred to the British Army when it was founded in 1707. If we conclude any Scottish army or any English army prior to 1707 can be described as the British Army that means the British Army was founded in 843 as the Scottish Army when the Kingdom of Scotland was established, it was founded again in 927 when the Kingdom of England was established. And it was founded once more when the United Kingdom of Great Britain was established in 1707. The British Army has been known worldwide as the British Army since 1707. Meenmore (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
No-one is denying that the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707, but you seem to be arguing that the adjective "British" cannot be used for anything before that date. The dates of establishment of the kingdoms of England and Scotland is totally irrelevant here: it was only in 1660 that a standing army in the service of the Crown was first authorised. Before the Civil War, armies were raised and disbanded as needed during wartime; there was no regular army in either kingdom. Opera hat (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── During the Restoration, the only time that the Scottish regiments operated as a "Scottish Army", under Scottish control, was when engaged on internal policing duties in Scotland, e.g. hunting Covenanters, and even these independent operations ceased after 1689. Regiments on the Scottish and Irish establishments were transferred to the English establishment when serving overseas. The Royal Scots were placed permanently on the English establishment in 1678, the Scots Guards in 1686, the Scots Fusiliers in 1688, the Cameronians in 1700, Polwarth's Dragoons[1] and Grant's and Strathnaver's Foot in 1708,[2][3] and the Scots Troop of Horse Guards in February 1709.[4] So you can see that, while the Union of the Kingdoms can be neatly dated to 1 May 1707, the merger of the English and Scottish military establishments was a gradual process that began before the Union and continued after it. Not that this really matters: since they were raised starting in 1660, the regiments on the English, Scottish and Irish establishments comprised a single Army in the service of a single monarch: the British Army. Opera hat (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The British state was created in 1707. The army that was founded in 1660 ceased to exist in 1707. The British Army is the British Army. Borderline racism and bigotry to suggest Scotsmen and Irishmen are not fighting for Scottish regiments and Irish regiments in the British Army but are in fact fighting for the English Army merely calling itself the British Army. It is important that Wikipedia is guided away from such fantasies. The fact is the Scottish Army and the English Army both ceased to exist. Meenmore (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The British Army website notes the Infantry owes its direct heritage to the Crown and the oldest Regiment of the Line dates to 1633, the Royal Scots, which predates even the New Model Army, the Grenadier Guards, the Coldstream Guards and the Blues and Royals (Royal Horse Guards and the Royal Dragoons). [5]

History

Whilst the British Army traces its heritage back to Oliver Cromwell's raising of the new Model Army, the Infantry owes its direct heritage to the Crown and the pre-Civil War period.
Origins
The British Infantry traditionally has been divided into two parts - the Foot Guards and the Infantry of the Line. The oldest Regiment of the Line is the The Royal Scots Borderers (1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland) which was formed in 1633 when King Charles I warranted Sir John Hepburn to raise a Scottish Regiment for service in France.

The Foot Guards have traditionally provided protection to the Monarch and trace themselves back to Bruges in 1656, when the Royal Regiment of Guards was raised by the exiled King Charles II. This Regiment went on to become the Grenadier Guards.

The relevant aspects of the discussion here could be better reflected in the article and/or in History of the British Army. Whizz40 (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The decision has to be based on sources not logic or opinion. A google Books serach finds little support in sources for the British Army being founded in 1707 [6]. There are better references in souces for 1660 [7] although I think there should be a note in the infobox and article referring to 1633 for the Royal Scots and to New Model Army and the regiments which date dack to it. Whizz40 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Whizz, I know you have great difficulty ingesting England is not the United Kingdom but a mere part of it. Great Britain consists of Scotland, England and Wales. The British Army is the army of Scotland, England and Wales. Ireland is an unusual example as the British Army is the army for the northern part of that country and the Irish Army is the army for the southern part. It is impossible for the British Army to be founded as the English Army as it has Scottish regiments. The English Army has never been the army of Scotland. It appears you are claiming that in 1707 the English Army became the army of Scotland. This is not what happened in 1707, Scotsmen and Englishmen created a new state known as Great Britain and on creating that state they also created a new army for that state which is the British Army. What happened to the Scottish Army? England had a greater population than Scotland hence why in 1707 it had a greater number of regiments, military characteristics of the English Army did transfer to the newly created British Army but so did the military characteristics of the Scottish Army.

It appears we have here on the Wikipedia pages relating to the United Kingdom (Its law, its constitution, its history and its armed forces), a group of deluded Englishmen who think everything in the United Kingdom is English and the United Kingdom is England and England is the United Kingdom. Because an Englishman writes a book that states the British Army was founded as the English Army in 1660 does not mean we should delude ourselves and the rest of Wikipedia be it the readers or its editors with such fantasy. The population of England is greater than the populations of Scotland and Wales but its greater population does not give England or its people the right to rewrite the histories of Scotland and Wales. I am a Scotsman and in 1707, the Scottish regiments of my country did not transfer to the English Army, they transferred to the British Army, the army Scotland and England created. Meenmore (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Meenmore, as discussed at length at Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom consensus is based on evaluating editors' argument based on Wikipedia policies and reference to reliable sources. Opposition or disagreement from one or more editors that is argued without reference to sources or policies does not override the WP:Community consensus. See in particularly WP:NOCONSENSUS which states "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." and WP:RFCEND which states "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies." As discussed above at length, the WP:ONUS is on you to make the case for your changes by references to sources which support your position. So far, you have provided none. Whizz40 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Whizz, sooner or later the anti-Scottish agenda that is currently infesting the Wikipedia pages regarding the United Kingdom will be addressed and removed. The British Army was founded in 1707, it was not founded in 1660 as the English Army. If you are claiming the British Army existed as the English Army nearly fifty years before the creation of the British state the onus is on you to produce the source rooted from official UK government, state or parliament published evidence to support this claim. Most Scots, Welsh and Irish will not support the deluded and inaccurate claim that the British Army was founded as the English Army even if most English do. Again, I will remind you the British Army is not the English Army, it is the army of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales as well as England.

On the official Ministry of Defence British Army website (www.army.mod.uk) you will find the following at the British Army Structure section (http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/structure.aspx):

Its primary task is to help defend the interests of the UK, which consists of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This may involve service overseas as part of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) force or any other multi-national deployment. Soldiers may also be deployed on United Nations (UN) operations and used to help in other emergencies.

Meenmore (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wiki editors depend on published reliable secondary sources and downplay the personal opinions of editors who are unable to cite these sources, Editors might look at the RS and see what they say: these bookds are all at amazon.com. Start with 1)Redcoats and courtesans: the birth of the British Army (1660-1690) by Noel T. St. John Williams (Brassey's, 1994), which says the British army starts in 1660 and was fully organized by 1690--long before 1707. I think there is a misunderstanding in the assumption that nothing "British" can begin before 1707 but historians and RS disagree. You can also look at more book titles: 2) British Military Swords, Volume I: 1600 to 1660 The English Civil Wars and the BIRTH of the British Standing Army (2013) by Stuart C. Mowbray; 3) The British Army 1660–1704 (Men-at-Arms series, 1994) by John Tincey and Gerry Embleton; 4) Gentlemen of the Blade: A Social and Literary History of the British Army Since 1660 (1988) by G.W. Stephen Brodsky; 5) Succession of Colonels of the British Army from 1660 to the Present Day (1974) by N. B. Leslie; 6) 1688 Glorious Revolution?: The Fall and Rise of the British Army 1660-1704 (1998) by Alan J. Guy and Jenny Spencer-Smith; 7) The British Officer: Leading the Army from 1660 to the present (2007) by Anthony Clayton; Rjensen (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen, thank you for your response. The Armed forces of Scotland and England were independent of each other until 1707. An army which includes Scottish regiments along with English, Welsh or Irish regiments is known as the British Army whereas an army that exclusively consists of English regiments is known as an English Army. The British Army was not involved in the English Civil War even though certain English authors incorrectly believe it was. The English Civil War was an English Civil War fought between the English Parliamentary Army and the English Royalist Army. You have issued a number of books as possible sources. But on a page like the British Army one needs official governmental rooted sources. My actions are done so this page is consistent with the other Wikipedia pages relating to the British Army History of the British Army. There was no British state prior to 1707 therefore it is impossible for the British Army to exist prior to 1707. We need to deal with facts, you can produce one hundred books based on personal opinions stating the British Army was founded prior to 1707 but only an official UK government, state or parliament published source is credible and not one editor has produced an official UK government, state or parliament published source to back up their claim the British Army was created around 50 years before the creation of the British state. I will remind you this page is about the British Army which is the army of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales as well as England. The army created in 1660 was an English Army which exclusively consisted of English regiments. The army founded in 1660 was an English Army and its primary role was to protect the interests of England, the army founded in 1707 is the British Army and its primary role is to protect the interests of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Meenmore (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Meenmore made up his interpretation -- like the words "it is impossible for the British Army to exist prior to 1707" -- who says otherwise: multiple scholars in published books, He ignores all scholarly books, and although he claims to use primary sources he does not actually quote any of them. It sounds like zero sources versus multiple scholars. He refuses to use the reliable secondary sources cited here. And he operates from an explicit intense political bias against Wiki editors who disagree with him --above he uses the terms "Borderline racism and bigotry." ps for the record I am not a Brit/ English/Scot/Welsh nor Irish). Rjensen (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen, you will find it is you along with the other editors who operate from an explicit intense political bias. Again, this is not about my personal opinion, it is about something larger than my personal opinion, your personal opinion or the personal opinions of individuals who decided to publish their opinion in books. It is about wikipedia consistency and alignment. The fact that the British Army page had its founding year as 1660 and the active years on the Scottish Army page and the English Army page are both (1660-1707) respectively caused an alignment and consistency problem which I am trying to address in the interest of wikipedia, however, I am met with a wall of explicit intense political bias. You being non-Scottish, non-English, non-Irish, non-Welsh is totally irrelevant. Meenmore (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The British Army is in fact the direct descendant of Cromwell's New Model Army, the first full-time, paid, professional, standing army. Prior to this Kings and Queens raised armies as-and-when required from the regions and local militias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and that was true of both sides in the Civil War – local magnates raised local forces – until the New Model was set up. The evolution of standing armies and states in the early modern period was a sort of parallel process (Prussia, which was famously once described as an army which had a state, being an extreme example I suppose). To be honest I doubt anybody in 1660 would have recognised the various regiments raised for the King as an “English Army” or a “Scottish Army” – they just didn’t think in those terms, and the only source being presented on Wikipedia for the existence of “a Scottish Army” is an Edwardian book which may well just be using the term as a sort of taxonomic convenience.
I’d have to refresh my memory about the details but during the War of the Spanish Succession there was a board in London to administer the war on which a number of prominent Scottish generals sat. Scottish regiments like the Scots Greys were referred to by the French as “the Queen of England’s Scottish troops”. The quasi-merger of Parliaments in 1707 made little difference to military operations. To imagine that there was an “English Army” and a “Scottish Army” and that they “merged” in 1707 is erroneous.Paulturtle (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"The Queen of England's Scottish troops" appears to have been recently made up as it ignores historical fact. The Queen of Scotland was the Queen of England and Scottish Royal Family the House of Stuart reigned in both the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. The whole body of this article is created to appease in denial English nationalists who have not accepted that the Kingdom of Scotland took control of the Kingdom of England when it created the United Kingdom known as Great Britain in 1707. The New Model army was a REPUBLICAN ARMY and its Commander-in-Chief was a REPUBLICAN. The Scottish and English Armies were Royal Armies which united to create the British Army which believe it or not, from its creation in 1707, has always had a Royal as its Commander-in-Chief.

I have never heard the likes of it, the claim that a Royal Army is descended from a Republican Army. British Army personnel have to pledge their allegiance to the reigning monarch, their heirs and successors. The New Model army hated Royalty and in fact temporarily ousted the Royals. Just accept it, Scotland and England are kingdoms which are united in a kingdom known as Great Britain and the two countries are not republics. Meenmore (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure who the English nationalists are you refer to but whatever we might think the modern British Army clearly thinks it traces its history back to 1660. Also note that as a Regimental system the concept of a "British Army" is fairly modern and it is unlikley that somebody set up an office in 1707 and stuck a sign outside saying "British Army" as has been said the regiments who were loyal to the crown just carried on as they were. Not sure why you think this somehow distracts from the fact that the two kingdoms were united or has anything to do with either being a republic has to do with any of this. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
"The Queen of England's Scottish Guards" (sic) is in fact what the French used to call the Scots Greys in the very early 1700s, in the same way, I suppose, that the King of Spain probably had Portuguese and Italian troops fighting for him in the early 1600s. And it's quite absurd to suggest that England was "taken over" by Scotland in 1707 - a century earlier King James VI & I brought a fair number of cronies down south with him - and the idea that there was a joint entity called "Great Britain" began to evolve from then, albeit not in a linear way. 1707 was a quasi-merger in theory but in practice the Scottish Parliament dissolved itself and Scottish legislators, chosen by a tiny proportion of the Scots population (in 1832 the Scots electorate increased from 5,000 to 65,000 out of a population of 2.3m), tacked themselves onto what had been the English Parliament at Westminster. It made a lot of difference to the government of Scotland but very little to that of England. It's true there was an effort in the eighteenth century to create a new "British" identity (even trying to rechristen Scotland "North Britain") but foreigners and even Scots often used to refer to the joint entity as "England" well into the early twentieth century. None of that made much difference to the gradual evolution of the British Army out of the various regiments set up in 1660 and in some cases earlier than that. But I think this discussion has pretty much run its course.Paulturtle (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 was signed by GREAT BRITAIN. It was an agreement between GREAT BRITAIN and FRANCE and SPAIN which resulted in Gibraltar being transferred from the Crown of Spain to the Crown of GREAT BRITAIN. France and Spain DID NOT acknowledge Great Britain as England and England as Great Britain. The Treaty of Paris (1783) which was agreed between GREAT BRITAIN and the United States of America was also signed GREAT BRITAIN. The Spanish, the French and the Americans from 1707 have not acknowledged England in any international treaty since then. So who are these 'foreigners' that called the joint entity England? Meenmore (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Way of the original point so not much more can be said on this, so this discussion can be closed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The British Army is the descendant of Cromwell's New Model Army which fought against Charles I, which is why the British Army was never awarded the prefix "Royal", as this title is only awarded by Royal Warrant, and the NMA was technically in Royal eyes guilty of high treason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.101 (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:British Army/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FriyMan (talk · contribs) 08:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.

Checked in previous review.

1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Issues addressed in the previous review solved.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

Nothing to worry about here.

2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

No dead links, everything is good.

2c. it contains no original research.

Good.

2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

Nothing I can see.

3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

Article up to date.

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

All right.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

No problem here.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Very easy to do.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.

Everything OK

6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Everything is relevant.

7. Overall assessment.

Good job! I am happy to make this article a GA!

Operation Temperer[edit]

Shouldn't the recent deployment to key targets in the UK be added to this page? --2A02:C7D:7AE4:3300:2852:4A89:15B5:B39A (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added it as a 'UK deployment'. UK units are permanently deployed guarding certain locations anyway, so should it count as a 'deployment'? We could call it a 'special deployment' or something to differentiate from routine deployments? J349 [Talk!] 12:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that whilst it is active it makes sense to have this section. Once it ceases this should be moved to the recent history section. I don't think it should be maintained once the operation has ended as otherwise we start getting into the realms of having to list every standby task the army is currently on - which is quite a few. Stingray Trainer (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I have now added a section to the 'recent history' part that covers UK Operations and support to the civil authorities. Once Op Temperer ends it can be removed from the 'current ops' table as it is now covered here. Stingray Trainer (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)O

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)