Template:Did you know nominations/Cavalry Staff Corps

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Cavalry Staff Corps[edit]

(

)

Trooper of the Cavalry Staff Corps

... that the Cavalry Staff Corps (trooper pictured) is regarded as Britain's first standing military police force? "The Staff Corps of Cavalry, formed in 1813, was Britain's first standing military police force" (National Army Museum)

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nucella canaliculata (1/2)

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 09:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC).

@Dumelow: Minor comment about the hook: you use the word "regarded as", but that could mean that the Cavalry Staff Corps is only thought of as Britain's first standing military police force, possibly only by some sources (the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines it as "to consider or have an opinion about something or someone"). However, the source makes it clear that it is Britain's first standing military police force. Maybe just omit "regarded as"? Apologies if you think I'm nit-picking too much. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries SkyGazer 512. ALT1 proposed below, happy with either - Dumelow (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT1* ... that the Cavalry Staff Corps (trooper pictured) was Britain's first standing military police force?

Thanks for the quick reply and new suggestion, Dumelow. ALT1 looks fine to me. Full review will be to follow.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Eligible, well-written with mostly highly-quality sources and no unsourced statements, and no substantial direct copying or close paraphrasing from other sources. Hooks are cited in the article and supported by a source that seems reliable enough, and are interesting with no issues that I can see. As I said above, I prefer ALT1 for clear accuracy, but would be okay with the original should the promoter think that's better. Image is correctly licensed freely, of good quality, and used in the article, and QPQ has been done. Should be good to go!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)