Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Temporary gentlemen

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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Temporary gentlemen

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

Temporary gentlemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Discusses the experience of men from outside the traditional "officer class" who were temporarily commissioned into the British Army during the world wars. I started this way back in 2012 and it's been a long time in the making, reaching mainspace only last December, with a five year gap in the middle. Sturmvogel 66 recently reviewed this at GAN and kindly suggested it might be ready for A-class review. It has been a long time since I put anything through here (February 2013!) so I may be a little rusty, but I am happy to put the work in on this. I would love to be able to take this to FAC one day so please do not hold back on any comments that might be relevant there. Many thanks in advance - Dumelow (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
Thanks for the heads up. I've uploaded a local version, under the same license tags, hopefully that's right? - Dumelow (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.
Does the Imperial War Museum's declaration on Flickr that it has "No known copyright restrictions" help? If not, I'll get rid of it - Dumelow (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since they're actually claiming "IWM Non-Commercial license" I would err on the side of caution, as opposed to PD-released which would be the only other option I can see. There's no death date given for the author of the photo that would put it in public domain (based on back of the envelope calculations he could well have been alive 70 years ago). (t · c) buidhe 14:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to an image of Wilfred Owen; published in a 1920 book so should be OK? - Dumelow (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced Geddes' image with a painting made by an artist who died in 1931 so that should be OK, I think? The National Library of Ireland state "No known copyright restrictions" on their Flickr upload, but if not OK I will remove it. Thanks so much for reviewing this buidhe, I always get confused by image licensing - Dumelow (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Geddes painting wouldn't be automatically free in US because 1931+70=2001, after the URAA date. Do we know when it was first exhibited (if either before 1925 or after 2003, then it would be ok to use according to Hirtle chart)?
OK, think I've sorted it. I've found a photo of him from a 1923 issue of the Buffalo Times, New York. Which is PD by virtue of being published before 1925, I think? - Dumelow (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. NLI copyright is a tricky, it's not clear how they obtained this photograph or what they're basing the copyright status off of. I tried to check if it was published in the 11 April 1921 edition of Irish Times but the archive is paywalled.
I've replaced it with a recruitment notice from the Times of 1920, which is actually probably more interesting and relevant anyway - Dumelow (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 10:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being patient, it all looks good to me now! (t · c) buidhe 15:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi buidhe, sorry I've added a new image to accompany a new background section. Does the licensing of File:The Second Boer War, 1899-1902 Q72432.jpg look OK? - Dumelow (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine. (t · c) buidhe 16:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Eddie891

[edit]

Afternoon, Dumelow. I'll try and give this a read-through tonight or tomorrow. Ping me on or after Sunday if I've forgotten, please-- Eddie891 Talk Work 18:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The use of the term has been described as discriminatory," by who?
  • " though some later " some temporary gentlemen or some other people?
Temporary gentlemen, I've reworded to hopefully clarify this - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shortfall of 2,000 compared to theoretical full strength" I'm a little unclear what's being said here-- If I interpret it right, it may be better phrased as "2,000 below the theoretical full strength of the Army" or something
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "included VC winners" VC has not been defined
Spelt out and linked - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the Royal Artillery " are they both of the royal artillery, or just Nelson?
Hopefully now clarified - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Men who took up this offer were discharged from the regular army and appointed to temporary commissions, a process that caused problems upon demobilisation when many wished to continue their service in the army" I think this would be better placed before the sentence about Dorrell and Nelson, personally
Agreed, reordered - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did not receive a separation entitlement " I'm unfamiliar with this phrasing (separation entitlement) and suspect many readers may be as well
I've reworded this passage, though would appreciate a check on it - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some patriotic civilian employers continued to pay half wages whilst on active service such that some temporary gentlemen found themselves quite well off" I think you could manage without "patriotic", maybe add "continued to pay their employees" and perhaps quantify a bit more what "quite well off" means?
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some former rankers" what does 'rankers' mean?
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many were ex-public school boys who had chosen to serve in the" maybe "many had attended public schools and chosen to serve in the" but not a big deal
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "vacancies prior to looking elsewhere" would "before" be simpler than "prior to"
Agreed, changed - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hus the majority of newly commissioned officers from this time " what exactly is 'this time'? Just the 'early months of the war'?
Paragraph rewritten to avoid this - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was considerable favouritism shown towards those who had attended public or grammar schools with Officer Training Corps (OTCs). Indeed, even in this regard there was a bias towards the more well-known schools and not all former public school boys received a commission, many instead having to serve in the ranks." perhaps "There was considerable favouritism shown towards those who had attended public or grammar schools with Officer Training Corps (OTCs), and among those there was a bias towards more well-known schools. Not all former public school boys received a commission, instead having to serve in the ranks." but then again, maybe not
I've tried to reword and clarify this paragraph as a whole - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leader of the Conservative Party" conservative party worth a link?
done - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The heavy casualties suffered by the British Expeditionary Force saw the majority of the army's pre-war officers become casualties within the first year of the war" strikes me as somewhat redundant, maybe "[OPTIONAL: Heavy fighting saw] The majority of the British Expeditionary Force's pre-war officers became casualties within the first year of the war" (of course casualties led to casualties)
Yep, changed - Dumelow (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the more fashionable regiments" what defined a 'fashionable' regiment?
I'll have a think about this one, think I have a book that touches on this - Dumelow (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preferring Sandhurst graduates " specifically Sanhurst?
Yes, Woolwich graduates were intended for the technical corps (such as the engineers and artillery), the source states they "continued to maintain their social exclusivity by replenishing themselves from the cream of Sandhurst and being very picky about anyone with a temporary commission" - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that also the holder of the King's "
I've lost this sentence, merging it into the background section - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was a change in policy in 1916; in February of that year the" maybe "In February 1916 the War Office"
Yes, much better. Done - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The policy did, however, have some disadvantages." is this sentence necessary?
No, you are right. Removed - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also found that many NCOs" perhaps "many NCOs were"-- I don't see the benefit of "it was also found" here
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite this at the end of the war it was found that more than half of all British officers" maybe "At the end of the war more than half of all British soldiers"?
Yep it was a bit ungainly, reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(the majority of whom would have held temporary commissions)"?
Removed - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even when considering only the select few"?
removed - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "final dispatch from the front" worth a date? Not sure the reader would know when that was
Added and reffed - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To ease their transition into officers the War Office issued several instructional pamphlets, authored by pre-war regular officers, outlining the behaviour expected of temporary officers and regular officers were posted into newly raised battalions to provide advice." I don't think this flows quite how you want it to ("issued several [...] were posted" particularly)
Agreed, reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's through first world war. Really an interesting, well done article. Most of my comments are minor things (like subjective phrasing comments) that may or may not be helpful. Will be back to get the rest. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "American sociologist Willard Waller noted" I'd like a date on this, if possible ("noted in. . .")
Added - Dumelow (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " occupations in line with this status." might help to say "such as..."
I've reworded this and the following sentence which provides some detail on these jobs, those with "supervision and control over other men" - Dumelow (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From this point onwards an officer would not" Think you could say "was not"
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The government attempted to alleviate the issue" I think it would benefit from a restating of the issue here
Agreed, reworded - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "half of all positions suitable for returning officers" what does 'suitable' mean in this context?
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to discharged other ranks " -> "to those of other ranks discharged ", perhaps?
It sounds better to me the original way, but I am happy if consensus is against me - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many returning officers experienced considerable hardship," needed?
Deleted - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around 50 separate charities and organisations "?
Deleted - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Jonathan Wild argues" is wild also a historian?
Clarified - Dumelow (talk)
  • {"(Sandhurst returned to charging tuition fees after the war)" I wasn't aware that it ever didn't charge tuition?
Deleted this bit - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plight of the post-war temporary gentleman was summed up by Orwell" George?
Yep, named and linked - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though this failed to make much of an impact" ?
Deleted - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much anything from me, I hope some of my comments/suggestions are helpful-- It really is a fascinating, well done article. Nice work! Eddie891 Talk Work 19:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more thing: I think this article could benefit from a 'background' section explaining a couple of things, mainly the concept of 'gentleman', particularly in British society, and the background on where officers traditionally came from. You've got some stuff already, but I think it merits a dedicated section. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eddie891, I think you're right. I've made an attempt to add a background section, though it could probably do with some refining. I'd welcome suggestions. I've also added a sprinkling of information from new sources (Mansfield 2016 and Deeks 2017) that were written after I started work on this article and would be obliged if you could review the additions, many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good- I'll circle back once you've gotten a chance to work through my initial comments Eddie891 Talk Work 22:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891, I think I've covered everything above and I've had another pass through the article. I would greatly appreciate any more feedback - Dumelow (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Year added
    • " It came to be considered that the new officers should be considered gentlemen only by virtue of the commission they held," can you eliminate the repetition of 'considered' in such close proximity?
Reworded
    • "It was rare for temporary gentlemen to rise to senior rank." do you think it's been explained what constitutes a "senior rank" yet? If not, maybe add it-- I've read the article too many times to be sure on this one
I've reworded to "It was rare for temporary gentlemen to be appointed as commanding officers" as the source only discusses lt-cols and above - Dumelow (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The government attempted assist demobilised officers to find new work" missing word?
Missing "to" added - Dumelow (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Eddie891, I must have missed these. Thanks for looking again, it's much appreciated - Dumelow (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really good, thanks for all your work. Happy to Support Eddie891 Talk Work 01:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

This is a really great article, and I'm pretty impressed.

  • A substantial sum of money was required Although in theory, a commission could be sold only for its official value and was to be offered first to the next most senior officer in the same regiment, in practice there was also an unofficial "over-regulation price" or "regimental value" (ie bribe), which might double the official cost.
I've got a copy of Farwell (1981) that covers this and used it to expand this section - Dumelow (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Officers' Training Corps Suggest with"'Officers' Training Corps units".
I've now defined this earlier so I've switched to "OTCs" - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start a new paragraph after fn 12, as the subject changes
Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • turned first to volunteer from retired officers Should be volunteers
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19th battalion of the King's Royal Rifle Corps Capitalise "battalion".
Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start a new paragraph after fn 27, as the subject changes
Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the more fashionable regiments continued to discriminate, attempting to maintain their social exclusivity by preferring Sandhurst graduates over those with temporary commissions. The Guards in particular continued to vet applicants for social standing.
    Added "such as the Guards", I'm going to revisit this sentence later as I want to clarify it a bit more - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I remembered from my work on Frederick Browning that joining the Grenadier Guards required a personal introduction and an interview by the regimental commander, Colonel Sir Henry Streatfield, even though there was war on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Household Guards. Is this the Household Cavalry or the Brigade of Guards
    The source states Household Brigade, so named and linked - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The experience of temporary gentlemen was different in the Australian Army which, being a small peacetime force, required that the majority of its wartime officers were former civilians or men promoted from the ranks. I think by "former civilians" the source means "reservists". The Australian permanent force was small, but the Australian Army was relatively large given the population, because conscription had been introduced in 1911.

[W]hile the officers of the first contingent were selected on the responsibility of General Bridges, the duty was afterwards transferred to selection boards consisting of the District Commandant and three senior citizen-officers. It had been complained that some of the earlier commissions had been allotted to youngsters too immature to command Australians. Fixed rules were therefore laid down by which commissions were henceforth to be given only to men of twenty-three or over. This system often noticeably failed to obtain the right type of fighting officer. Fortunately, by the time it was in operation, the Australian battalions were already fighting, and officers were obtained by selecting those men who had shown themselves leaders in actual battle, or who appeared to possess the necessary qualities. Some of the later battalions to arrive in Gallipoli were almost immediately re-staffed by the latter process. From that time forth promotion of selected men from the ranks was the system by which the A.I.F. obtained nearly all its officers.

But in the original 1st Australian Division the great majority were selected from those who were officers already. Only 24 officers out of 631 had never served before; 68 were, or had been, officers of the Australian permanent forces, including 23 Duntroon graduates; 16 were officers of the British regular army! 15 were British officers who had retired; 99 were thus professional soldiers. On the other hand 402 were officers of the old Australian militia forces, including many temporary "area-officers", and another 58 were young officers under the newly-instituted compulsory service scheme. Of the remainder, 33 were retired officers of the Australian militia, and 9 of British, colonial, or foreign territorials. Of the whole 631 there were 104 who had seen service in the South African or other wars.

— Bean I:54

An important difference from the British practice described in this article was that Australian officers commissioned from the ranks continued to serve with their original units. Australian NCOs and subalterns had higher pay than their British counterparts; an Australian lieutenant made £365 a year, more than a British captain. General officers, however, made significantly less.

  • Thanks for the background. I've incorporated some of the info from Bean, but would welcome any further comments on this. I think it's useful to have a comparison to the Commonwealth practice but am wary of diverging too far into this - Dumelow (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right. I only included this because I thought the wording was incorrect. I've never seen the term "temporary gentlemen" in an Australian context, but some of the problem of post-war adjustment are familiar. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where was I? Inter-war period:

  • a status comparable to that which they held as Officers; Decapitalise "officers"
    It was from the original quote but I think it is trivial enough to decapitalise - Dumelow (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the controller-general?
    Controller-General of Civil Demobilisation and Resettlement, I've provided a bit of clarification in the article - Dumelow (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Eric Geddes was the Minister of Transport, right?
    He was actually minister without portfolio, the Ministry of Transport wasn't formed until May 1919. In the meantime he assumed an informal position co-ordinating demobilization and reconstruction. I've tried to clarify this - Dumelow (talk)
  • Are we talking here about appointments to civil service positions?
    It was actually both civil service and public sector (prospective employers sent details of vacancies to the department to fill). I've tried to clarify this - Dumelow (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • former brigadier-generals acting as cooks Are we saying that some did reach general officer rank? Any names?
    I couldn't find any names but Haig stated a few examples in his last dispatch, listing their former employments. I've added this - Dumelow (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Scratch that, I found a couple of names. Of whom I've mentioned George Gater as one of the more prominent - Dumelow (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have anything on temporary officers retained in the British Army after the war? Was this possible?
Some commissions were converted to permanent ones but relatively few, I've added a bit on this - Dumelow (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Dumelow (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Dumelow (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should emphasise that the temporary officers were just as good as those drawn from public schools. The problem with the latter was not one of quality, but of quantity.

Agreed, I've added a bit into a new "analysis" section (not sold on the title of this yet), with some comments on their performance (I'm looking to see if there's anything else I can add). I've also expanded on the number given battalion command - Dumelow (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article has an implication that things have changed, which is not supported by what I'm hearing about the British Army in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm recommending David French, Army, Empire and Cold War: The British Army and Military Policy 1945-1971. The proportion of cadets entering Sandhurst from public schools fell from 65 percent in 1947 to 37 percent in 1971, but the officers continued to be drawn mainly from the middle class. In the 1980s 65 percent of the Sandhurst cadets had attended private schools; this decreased to 42 percent by 2014. [1] (Also, according to Prince Harry, the custom of sending the second son into the Army persists.)

Alas French is out of my price range. I've expanded on this a bit at the end of the WWII and later section. My figures are a little different but the trend is the same - Dumelow (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of commas seem to have deserted or gone missing from the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye7, I've been done a run through and made some changes (including adding commas). I'd appreciate another look, if you've the time - Dumelow (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]
Thanks Indy beetle, I think it's in a position that you can take a look now. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial comment: Tony Gould in Imperial Warriors: Britain and the Gurkhas used the term Emergency Commissioned Officer (ECO) to describe the temporary gentleman of WWII. He also says, at least as far as the British Indian Army was concerned, there was little social conflict between the regular British officers and their "temporary" lower-class counterparts; the new social conflict was between British officers and Indian officers who were termed, according to Bengali officer D.K. Palit, "WOGs (Westernised Oriental Gentlemen)." Gould was a British WWII veteran who served with the Ghurkas. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Indy beetle, good find. I've incorporated this (and some other info) into the WWII section in a new paragraph on the Indian Army experience - Dumelow (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

Placeholder, claiming. Hog Farm Talk 15:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "One of the reasons the government favoured the purchase system was that it removed the need to provide a proper salary or pension to officers" - This implies that there are other reasons. Are the others of any significance?
Not that I can think of, reworded - Dumelow (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Coldstream Guards considered £400 per year as a requirement of entry and the rest of the Household Brigade £300" - Is this entry for officers or all soldiers?
For new officers, I've added this - Dumelow (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the more fashionable regiments, such as the Guards, continued to discriminate," - Unclear what specific unit(s) "Guards" is referring to.
Changed to foot guards, which I've used and linked earlier - Dumelow (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "168 were navvies" - What's a navvy?
Linked Navvy - Dumelow (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "khaki tunic on their back and a Webley .455 at their hip", The constabulary took steps to remove such men" - I think there should be a period in place of the comma
Agreed, fixed (I also missed an 's' from ranks - Dumelow (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The system was gradually reformed; after the reintroduction of conscription a General Service Corps scheme was set up to assess all new army entrants for suitability for a commission" - Can it be stated when this occurred?
I've given the year for conscription being introduced. I'm not certain on when the GSC scheme came in. I've just realised I don't have a copy of Holmes, so I've ordered one. Once it arrives I may be able to add this - Dumelow (talk)
  • References 111 and 113 have the title in sentence case, while the rest are in title case. Can this be standardized?
Fixed 113, on 111 I wouldn't normally capitalise "of" - Dumelow (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check on worldcat for OCLCs or ISBNs for the print sources that lack them.
Good shout, I've filled in the ones I could find - Dumelow (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the first pass. Hog Farm Talk 19:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, much appreciated. I've responded above - Dumelow (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Questia went dark two months ago so #15, 59, 114 need new links
Hi Sturmvogel 66. Oh, how annoying! I found a new source for #59, but the other two don't seem to be online anywhere. Am I best just to convert them to offline references? - Dumelow (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to pretend that you used physical copies in your local library if you are ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! - Dumelow (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for #68 is dead
Fixed with Internet Archive - Dumelow (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Temporary_gentlemen&oldid=1157281911"