Talk:Mobile Defence Corps
Add topicAppearance
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA review
| Mobile Defence Corps has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 3, 2025. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A fact from Mobile Defence Corps appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 June 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Did you know nomination
[edit]- 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 Cielquiparle talk 14:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the role of the British Army's Mobile Defence Corps was to carry out rescue work in the aftermath of a nuclear attack?
- Source: "In 1955 the MDC was intended to provide the able-bodied manpower to drive any post-attack rescue effort" from: Grant, M. (12 November 2009). After The Bomb: Civil Defence and Nuclear War in Britain, 1945-68. Springer. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-230-27404-4.
Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 918 past nominations.
Dumelow (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC).
Approved. Article was recently moved to mainspace, and is generally in good nick. It is fully cited to reasonable sources: some are primary rather than academic, which is not ideal, but they are all government or similarly official documents which meet the relatively low WP:RS bar required here. There are no evident plagiarism, BLP or copyvio concerns: at one point, our summary of Hansard tacks very closely to Hansard itself, but I think we're on the right side of the line. QPQ is done. The hook is cited and checks out; it is reasonably interesting, but perhaps some ALTs would be helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
GA review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mobile Defence Corps/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Dumelow (talk · contribs) 11:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Images appropriately licensed
- Spot checked 1, 7, 8
- short and sweet--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles



