Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Indian Army during World War I

Indian Army during World War I

This article started as the List of Indian Army Divisions in World War I, after a suggestion by User:Vinay84 it has been expanded to try and include details of where the Indian Army served, their formations etc. Not being well read on the Indian Army I believe I have taken this as far as I can for now and call upon other editors in the project to suggest where it can be improved via a peer review. As ever any and all suggestions are welcome! Thanks in advance. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Good work so far. Looking pretty good, I think. I've not had a thorough look, but here are a few observations:

• Is there a more World War I specific banner that could be used? (The flag in this one wouldn't be correct for the time, I think); If you mean the one top right it comes with the Indian Army template I agree it would not be the one used at the time but the article comes under Indian Army history.

• Could a background section be added, that discusses very briefly India's involvement in the war (how, when, where, why etc)?
• In the References section, some of the book headings are not capitalised correctly/consistently. Done

• There are a couple of dab links that need fixing (Baluchistan and Balochistan) per WP:Featured article tools;

• The images could have alt text added to them per WP:ALT

Anyway, that is it so far. Hope this helps, and hopefully some others with more specific knowledge of the subject will also add their opinions. Sorry for the drive-by nature of the review, but I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Farawayman

Some comments which could be of value:

Lead

Text reads "....He instituted the large–scale reforms, including merging the three armies of the Presidencies into a unified force and forming higher level formations, ten army divisions." The section titled Kitchener’s Reform make reference to nine Divisions.

Yes nine in Indian and the Burma Division its in the section --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Kitchener's reforms

I made some text modifications – refer article history. No change to facts.

Organisation

• I made some text modifications – refer article history. No change to facts.
• 2nd paragraph opens with a reference to Divisions but the sentence continues to discuss Brigades. Maybe some text adjustment is needed here.

Brigades were a part of the divisions

• Last paragraph: 62,000 died. Later you state a total of 74,187 were to die in WWI. Why not stick to the 74,187 throughout – same applies in the Lead?

62,000 died overseas but 74,187 died in total during the war - does this need to be clearer ?

Home Service

• I made some text modifications – refer article history. No change to facts.
• You explain the source of conflict on the NW Frontier, but there is no indication of what caused the need for punitive military actions against the Kachins on the NE Frontier. One sentence on that subject will suffice.

Independent Brigades

• In the section titled Kitchener’s Reforms you say that "…and these nine divisions together with three independent infantry brigades would serve in India. The Indian Army was also responsible for supplying a division in Burma and a brigade in Aden." i.e. there were FOUR independent brigades. In the Independent Brigades section the text says that the independent brigades were: (1.) Aden Brigade (2) Bannu Brigade (3) Derajat Brigade (4) Kohat Brigade (5) South Persia Brigade. I think the issue is timing – that there were 4 Ind Bde’s in 1914 and 5 in 1915. Maybe adjust the Kitchener’s Reforms text on this subject.

There were 3 brigades in India - Aden and Persia are different countries so did not serve in India.

• I made some text modifications – refer article history. No change to facts.

Indian Expeditionary Force A

Although this article is about the Army over the full duration of the war, the Indian Cavalry have become renowned for their mounted charge in the attack on High Wood in July 1916. Possibly this could be listed.

Indian Expeditionary Force B and C

Text changes made, refer article history. No facts changed.

Indian Expeditionary Force D

• The text reads that the Mesopotamian Campaign was delivered a setback at the Battle of Ctesiphon in November 1915 due to Logistical constraints. Maybe add some more details as to what these "logistical constraints" were and how they bedevilled the campaign.
• End of 1st para: Siege of Kut – state who was besieging Townshend and the Indian forces - Turks.
• The Turks had declared a Jihad against the invading infidel and this had a marked impact on many Indian soldiers, many of them being Muslim. This was another reason for low morale and in fact many desertions took place because of religious opposition to fighting fellow Muslims. Possibly some reference to this could be added.

Indian Expeditionary Force E and F

Compared to the solid descriptions for the composition and actions of the other task forces, these possibly need some re-work. Add what the Task Force was tasked to do, and what the results were.

Indian Expeditionary Force G to end

• I made text changes, refer history. No factual changes.
• Siege of Tsingtao: The article states that: (i.) the port was contolled by Germans; (ii.) The British sent a contingent of 1,500 men to the port; (iii.) The Japanese laid siege to the port. A bit confusing, perhaps the paragraph is too brief and needs more details clarifying what each force did.
• I did not review the VC section, as I have limited knowlege on those matters.

Concluding Remarks

• This is a huge subject, and you have done exceptionally well in limited space!
• Many of the sections are taken up describing the composition of the formations involved, this could be circumvented by adding an Order of Battle and leaving the sections to discuss events and the progress of the war, rather than the unit structures;
• For FA or A-Class I would recommend the addition of sections on (i.) Why India joined the war? (ii.) Indian General Staff / Commanders, (iii.) Integration (or the failure of integration) between Indian and British forces; (iv) Section on some of the notable units: Ghurkhas, Punjabis, Sikhs etc.
• I have tried to limit this review to factual content, and paid no attention to style etc.

Well Done! Farawayman (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a template at the bottom of the article that list the oob as such for each expeditionary force.

Thanks for the review have been busy with the Indian Army during World War II so missed this for a few days. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)