This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

This article is fairly accurate as far as it goes but lacks citations. I propose to expand it to bring in the following - as well as references:

- A section on the history of the RFCAs
- Some detail on their employer support role
- More about their advocacy and communication role
- A section on the scrutiny role established in the 2014 Defence Reform Act
- A section on the proposals for radical change published by the government last year

The title of the article should be plural - there are 13 of them.

Grateful for any thoughts before I get started on this rough outline Julian Brazier (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dormskirk Reverting from the other article, I propose that the title of this page be made plural. From the beginning, the county associations were set up - one for each county. Ditto regional TAVRAs and now RFCAs. The current singular title gives the impression that there is a body called the 'Reserve Forces and Cadets Association'. We could make the current heading work by starting 'A Reserve Forces and Cadets Association is....', as you hint, but that reads a bit oddly to me, in this context. They were set up together...

On separate points, I think you have done all the heavy lifting on the links so far - many thanks - I will try to pick them up in the future. I will tidy the large cut and paste job under 'Role' (Should incidentally be 'Roles', I suggest), so it looks more Wikipedia-like. On gaps in citation, so far, I can only see one, which I will do now - unless you want me to provide section numbers for the provisions of the (published) Acts of Parliament? Best wishes Julian Brazier (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I don't think we should put an 's' on Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. There are many town halls but that does not mean we should put an 's' on Town hall. But I would welcome the thoughts of other editors on this and am willing to be persuaded. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote problem

Dormskirk I am sorry to be constantly asking for help but I have taken some trouble to try to put in citations dealing with BAREURLs as you suggested and seem to have hit a new problem - the footnotes overlap in an unsightly way (although they still seem to all work). Is there a way of fixing that? Julian Brazier (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Think I have found how to do it Julian Brazier (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have got the hang of it (include the url under sources and then just refer to the document in summary form without url in the citation). Dormskirk (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DormskirkThanks for your help Julian Brazier (talk)