Talk:Force in Egypt

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: South Pacific / British / European / World War I CL‑class

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

CL

This article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

List class assessment

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

G'day, in summary, the reasons for the List rather than CL/BL class assessment are:

coverage and accuracy

the lead does not reasonably cover the topic, as it doesn't explain that the Force was created from the British garrison when the war commenced, that the threat was initially only from the Germans, that it faced an Ottoman attack in February 1915, or summarise that there were several changes in organisation depending on available forces (including British Empire and French troops) between its creation and merger into the MEF and EEF.
the sections do not make sense, the first section is labelled Force in Egypt End of 1914, and the following ones are August 1914 and September 1914. The way the material is laid out is hard to follow as it is not tabulised (which creates problems when numbers of troops are provided) and there are no bullet lists.

grammar

the text is hard to follow mostly due to abbreviations almost all of which are unexplained. Are "Punjabis" Punjabi Rifles?; what is (T.), Territorials?; "Rajput L.I., Light Infantry?"; other grammatical issues include "Yemen threaten attack"

supporting materials

the infobox does not enhance the article and so I haven't considered it to be a supporting material. An expanded infobox and/or map of the area would get a tick here.

Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, I appreciate your taking the time. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Grammar

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Most of the objections in the prior comment seem to be corrected, but some remain.

Capitalization. The editor appears to prefer list entries that are not proper nouns to begin with lower case letters. Presumably, to be consistent with that and normal capitalization "French Naval seaplanes", "Garrison railway . . .", "Indian Field Ambulance[s]", 'half company of Sappers and Miners", "a Machine Gun Section". "Anzac", "Territorial battalions" seem to contain unneeded capitals, but I'm not an expert on British Army formations.

Abbreviations: Wireless Section (T.), Detachment RAMC (T.) --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

G'day, Lineagegeek, thanks for those tweaks. I agree with pretty much all of them, although "sappers and miners" and "territorial" possibly could be considered proper nouns (as in the Bombay Sappers and Miners and the Territorial Army. I left as is, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add topic