Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2020 [1].

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this year, this article was nominated for FA-Status and not approved due to its length and some flaws in the coverage of the First World War period. Since then, the article has been split. This article covers the division's history between 1920–1945. The article has also been reassessed, and recently passed a new A-Class review. During the inter-war years, the West Lancashire Division was transformed from a three-brigade infantry division into a two-brigade motor division. As the Second World War loomed, it helped form the second-line 59th (Staffordshire) division. Then, during the war, the 55th was assigned to home defence duties and remained in the UK. While it was raised to the higher establishment in 1944, indicating potential combat duties, it was stripped of its assets for use in other formations. The division was maintained as a deception formation, assisting Operation Fortitude, before being demobilized at the end of the war.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I reviewed the original article at GAN and Milhist ACR, but haven't looked at it in its current reduced form. I have a few comments:

Lead
  • I suggest the following tweak to reduce the confusion with the two different articles and the bolding/hatnote:

    The 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division was an infantry division of the British Army's Territorial Army (TA) that did not see combat during the Second World War. It was initially raised in 1908 as the West Lancashire Division, part of the British Army's Territorial Force (TF). It fought in the First World War, as the 55th (West Lancashire) Division, and demobilised following the fighting. In 1920, when the TF was reconstituted as the TA, the division was reformed as the 55th (West Lancashire) Division.

I don't think the WWI "55th (West Lancashire) Division" should be bolded, as it is not a significant alternative name for this formation. Bold the final one as it is a significant alternative name for this division. I know, pedantry, but still. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated what is bolded, as well as a change to the intro per the comments below.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The was part→This was part, and drop the comma after change
Body
  • I don't think "broken-up" is right, shouldn't it be "broken up"?
  • suggest "fought during the Battles of the Somme, Passchendaele, and Estaires, and took part in the Hundred Days Offensive."
  • "the 164th (North Lancashire), the 165th (Liverpool), and the 166th (South Lancashire and Cheshire) Infantry Brigades" as they are proper nouns, and drop the brigade link here and move it to the next instance
  • for reviewed link military parade
  • suggest "During the interwar period, TA formations and units were only permitted to recruit up to 60 per cent of their established strength"
  • move the division link to first mention in the first section
  • suggest "The reform started the process of removing infantry and artillery elements from the division"→"This resulted in the removal of infantry and artillery elements from the division"
  • "around which the new divisions could be expanded"
  • "The 55th provided cadres to create thea second line "duplicate" formation"

Down to Second World War. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy down to here except for the lead bolding tweak. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't clear to me on what basis the division raised the 164th Brigade prior to the war when it was supposed to be a two-brigade motor division and it already had the 165th and 166th. What was it going to do with it? Transfer it to a new or existing division?
    The sources outline the duplication process going from division down to battalion level i.e. the 55th helped form the 59th; the 166th Bde cast off a cadre that became the 177th Bde etc. The process was supposed to start when the TA was officially expanded, but differed by division. The early 1939 Army Lists show the 164th Bde disappearing from the OOB, and not being there right through the August 39 security edition. Joslen states the 166th was used to form a cadre for the 59th's new brigade, and was then was then transferred itself to give the 59th its second brigade (it was a motor division too). The 55th apparently keeping the newly raised 164th, which Joslen does not state anything about. An additional note under the 176th and 177th is that they were administered by the 55th, until the 59th was able to function as a separate formation. I wasn't able to find the 164th's Bde CO in the London Gazette to state when he took command (and implied reformation of the bde), although he is not the same as the one who held the command when the brigade disappeared from the OOB in early 1939. Prior to the outbreak of the war, per the August '39 security list, he was the GSO1 for the 5th division.
    With all that said and done, any advise on how to best word this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, can I ask, when does the 164th Brigade reappear on the Army List? Because if it wasn't in the August edition, that calls into question Joslen's contention that it was raised before the outbreak of war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, after a little extra research, I have found that the from about mid-1939 though to the end of the war, the monthly lists were printed as two versions: those for wider distribution (publicly?), which omitted information such as OOBs etc; and security editions, which were more limited in distribution and contain OOBs (for example, see: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44222863?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents). The security editions of the monthly, quarterly, and semi-annually army lists, during the war, do not appear to be available. The ones that are just list names. I was unable to locate mention of the 164th's GOC as a brigadier, so I was unable to point to a potential promotion date.
Everything in Joslen starts 3 September. The September Army List for September is potentially a security edition(?), as it lists an OOB. It only details a two-brigade 55th, and doesn't mention the 59ths or the 164th, 176th, and 177th Brigades. The impression to me is that either this is not the security edition, or the monthly lists are slightly off by a month or so?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be pedantic about such a minor thing, but can you quote what Joslen says about the 164th being raised before the start of the war? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, so each brigade starts with a title and then key dates:
"164th Infantry Brigade
September 1939 A First Line territorial Army Infantry Brigade"
That is literally all he has to say about the origins of the brigade. This is the same for the 165th. For the 166th, that first line includes "A First Line territorial Army Infantry Brigade in 55th Division, which on embodiment was reorganized as a Motor Division. On 4 September the Brigade was redesignated 176th infantry Brigade and ceased to exist."
For contrast, the randomly selected 223rd Brigade, with its first line entry: "17 October 1940 Formed for service in the United Kingdom"
Anything formed prior to 3 September starts with essentially the same blurb, that they already existed. He doesn't state when. This is why I have kept the wording as "by the outbreak" in the article, since there is nothing to really to point to a date (such as the Army List for an OOB or Brigadier date of employment, or the Gazette for the chap's promotion date).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then can I suggest you use the following wording "By September 1939, the 55th Division had also reformed the 164th Brigade." and move it to after "59th (Staffordshire) Motor Division"? That way you are conforming more closely to what the source says. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved that piece of info, per your recommendation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Royal Air Force Handley Page Hampdens bombers"
  • link General (United Kingdom)
  • "providing mobile detachments to hunt downrespond to any German airborne landings"
  • "This freed up the 199th Infantry Brigade and an artillery regiment to be transferred to the 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division" unless its name had already changed, and if so, please insert this name change in the appropriate spot
    199th Bde was with the 66th Division, until it was broken up. The bde did not change its name to the 166th div until 15 August 1944. There is a brief mention of this in the wind-down section. Would you suggest being more specific in the latter section, with a date?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no I mean that at the time the 199th Bde was transferred the name of the division was presumably still the 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division, not just the 55th Division. And on what date did it change name to the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this is pretty nitpicky, but given the division changed names, I suggest you use the full name of the division (at the time) throughout the article rather than calling it the 55th Division in several places, as well as (if you can) add what date the division changed name from the 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division to the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article and updated the name throughout, per your comment. As for the name change, probably 23 June when the 199th Brigade became part of the division. Joslen just states the reform took place in June: "June 1940 Reorganized as an Infantry Division".
  • link Military reserve for reserve formation
  • drop the comma after "The intention of this deployment"
  • rather than link to Belgian Army, what about Free Belgian forces#Belgian Army in the United Kingdom
  • "The division remained within the United Kingdom and was drained of manpower to a point that it was all but disbanded"
  • for deception formation link Military deception#World War II
  • I'm finding it hard to follow the deployment of the division as part of Operation Fortitude. When did the division move from North to South?
    I have made some tweaks to that section, and added a little extra info. Do these changes make things more clear?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • should it be West Lancashire in the final sentence?
  • in Footnote h, "Infantry Divisions" not "infantry divisions"

That's me done. I haven't checked the sources or spotchecked the content, I'll leave that to the source reviewer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for your review. I have attempted to address all of the majority of your points above. I have left three small notes as reminders for myself; those points, I will attempt to tackle later. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just a couple of additional outstanding comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good now, supporting. Well done with this. It has been quite the process. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image reviewEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Aza24[edit]

Should be able to review later today or tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well that ^ was a lie... apologies, first batch of comments below:
  • You link WWII but not WWI; also the hatnote links to the wrong war?
    Thank you for that catch! I have updated the link, and also added one for the First World War into the main article text.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • definitely link cadres, most lay readers will not be familiar with the term, I see it's already linked in the text anyways, just not the lead
    Link added to the ledeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's weird to me that "German" links to Nazi Germany, seems like an unexpected link. Maybe the German occupation of Czechoslovakia should just be linked with it's full name, or it should be switched to "Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia..."
    I would have to hunt it down, but there was consensus at MILHIST (at least a while ago) to avoid using the term "Nazi Germany" as the country was just called Germany, the Nazis being a political party etc. With that said, i have removed the extra link so it is just 'German occupation of Czechoslovakia'.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you just worked on this with Mike below, but I'm still really confused by parts of the lead, the fact that 55th (West Lancashire) Division is bolded but when searching redirects to a different article is telling in itself. I think it's this line "In 1920, the 55th (West Lancashire) Division started to reform." that's confusing – although I understand the discrepancies here, I'm really not sure how to clarify them in the text. Given that both Mike and I have brought this up I wonder if Peacemaker67, who reviewed above, could see if they might have a solution here
  • Looking at the interwar period section maybe "Liverpool" in the infobox should be tweaked to something like "Liverpool and throughout Lancashire" or maybe "Primarily Liverpool" – maybe this suggestion is too much detail for the infobox though?
    The infobox was reflecting a piece of information that appears to have been edited out, and I have just reinserted. The division was headquartered in Liverpool. I updated the interwar period section, so it now reads "The 55th (West Lancashire) Division was headquartered and primarily based in Liverpool, although it had units throughout Lancashire."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first quote by David French, it may be better to add a specific page number, from what I've seen it's common practice to make direct quotes as easily verifiable as possible
    I have moved the first cite back a sentence, as it summarizes what is referenced across those pages. That leaves the rest of paragraph and quotes cited to the exact page, as referenced by the last cite. Does this work?
  • Again I find it weird that Germany links to Nazi Germany, it may be better just to spell out Nazi Germany
    Per above commentEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As an FYI, these appear (unless there is something else out there) to be the main discussions on the subject: 2007 consensus, 2016 RFC consensus, and 2017 consensus.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, didn't know there had been talks about this!
  • "In April, limited" – presumably this was April of the following year, but it may be better to just spell out "In April 1940" to minimize the risk of confusion.
    1939 (yes, conscription started before the war), I have added the year.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got to the Second World War, will get through the rest later – and with no where near as big of a delay as before! Aza24 (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have tried to address all, but the one where you have sought additional feedback from our colleagues.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the double parentheses are a little confusing to read imo, maybe use en dashes? (e.g. "...and the 165th Brigade – with the 5th Battalion, King's Regiment (Liverpool), and the 1st and the 2nd Battalions, Liverpool Scottish (Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders)"
  • I don't think the parentheses at "(with the 9th Battalion..." ever closes? Perhaps en dashes could be used here too...
    I have reworded this opening paragraph to address both of these points. Does this change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division's initial duties included deploying guards..." you started the sentence before this one with "The division" I would think changing one of them may make it less repetitive
    I have reworded the former sentence, rather than this one. Does this change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 6 September, the division fired its first shots..." is this the next year or a typo? If neither the chronology would seem a little odd considering two sentences before there was a "On 15 September, the 166th Infantry Brigade..."
    We are talking about 1939. I have split that para in two. I do not believe that sentence should be moved further up, just because the now first paragraph is discussing the contents of the division and the duplication.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link Julius Caesar and add quotes "Julius Caesar" so it's clear the link goes to the person not an article on the plan but eh maybe not...
    AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than coastal defence, the division was also responsible for providing mobile detachments to respond to any German airborne landings, guard Ipswich Airport, and construct roadblocks inland from potential invasion beaches may flow better if the list is in increasingly long phrase order, if that makes sense, like "Other than coastal defence, the division was also responsible for guarding Ipswich Airport, constructing roadblocks inland from potential invasion beaches and providing mobile detachments to respond to any German airborne landings" – either way I believe it should be guarding and constructing
    Reworded per your suggestionsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On paper, an infantry division was to have seventy-two 25-pounder field guns. this sounds like you're setting up to say something like "but in reality it only had..." or "in reality in had more, ..." but the next sentence doesn't seem to say this, or am I misreading the intention here?
    So that is the intent. I have made a couple of tweaks, but nothing major here. It was supposed to have 72 of those guns, and it only had 8.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get through "Wind down and deception" later today Aza24 (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1944, the war establishment – I would think the year is not need since you just had it, surely "However, the division did not increase in size; the war establishment..." would suffice
    I have dropped the year, per your suggestion. I have made a slight change to the sentence, as the establishment changed throughout the war.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else looks good. I'd say that since PM and Mike were fine with the lead – and Gog didn't say anything about it, it's probably fine. My remaining point is nothing big so Support - Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, thank you for your review and comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • I'm not at all clear from the first paragraph of the lead at what date this article starts and the article about the previous incarnation of the division stops. 1920? Late 1930s? For example, 55th (West Lancashire) Division in bold implies that's the subject of this article, but that's the first unit, not this one. I think it must be 1920 but that's not clear.
  • The lead says In 1920, when the TF was reconstituted as the TA, the division was reformed as the 55th (West Lancashire) Division but the body says In April 1920, the division began reforming in Lancashire, as part of Western Command. In 1921, the TF was reconstituted as the Territorial Army (TA) following the passage of the Territorial Army and Militia Act 1921. Assuming the body is correct, the lead should avoid implying the TA came into being in 1920.

Can't see anything else; the prose is workmanlike but perfectly sound. I made a couple of minor copyedits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review. I have made an editor to the lede to correct the contradiction you highlighted and to try and make it more clear what we are talking about. Does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The changes to the lead make it much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Both images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review this. I seem to remember looking this over last time round. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some copy editing as I went, which you will want to check.

I looked through the edits you made, and I am quite happy with them: thanks :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 55th (West Lancashire) Division in the lead.
    This link can be found in the following sentence, although it is piped at present: "It had originally been raised in 1908 as the [[55th (West Lancashire) Division|West Lancashire Division]]"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1920, the 55th (West Lancashire) Division started to reform." What does "started" mean?
    Would this just be easier, worded as "reformed" rather than started to reform?
    This section, in part, is paraphrasing the information from Becke: "...demobilization proceeded, and the division gradually dwindled. ... the strength of the division had shrunk to 158 officers and 2,192 other ranks. Its war service was over; and in April, 1920, it began to re-form in the Western Command at home." I believe "started" refers to the division reorganizing/recreating staff, brigades, and getting battalions up to the strength etc. I was unable to find anything that points directly to that, for example from battalion histories. I know that Cowper providers a somewhat detailed account of the interwar period (from what I can remember), and I feel like her work would be able to provide the "personal" touch to what this all meant, but I no longer have access to it. The November 1920 Army List (the earliest I could locate that is accessible) basically provides the same info as the 1921 ones: same brigade layout etc, showing if anything the reformation had already taken place by then.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is fine as it is then. Or, optionally, you may wish to consider 'started the process of reforming'.
  • "the division had been drained of much of its assets" As assets are countable, perhaps "much" → 'many'?
    Tweaked per your recommendationEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Operation Fortitude, the deception effort that supported the Allied invasion of France". "the deception" → 'a deception'?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "codenamed "Julius Caesar" . Wikilinking Julius Caesar seems spurious.
    Added and removed, all in one FAN :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April 1920, the division began reforming in Lancashire". Is it known when this reformation was complete?
    Same as the above. Not a whole lot to work with source wise.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division was reformed with the 164th (North Lancashire), the 165th (Liverpool), and the 166th (South Lancashire and Cheshire) Infantry Brigades." When? Which may duplicate the last question.
    The November 1920 Army List does show one Brigade CO assigned in April, and the other two in June. Based off other snippets of information I have read of the brigades being disbanded when the division demobed, this would seem to indicate when they were refounded.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "up to 60 per cent of their established strength". Is "established" the correct word? (It may be, but I am more used to 'establishment'.)
    You would be right, so it has been tweaked.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British Army began implementing lessons learnt from the campaign in France in mid-1940." Is this suggesting that the campaign in France was in mid-1940, or that lessons were implemented them?
    A bit of both. The campaign ended in June 1940, and the Army started reorganizing its forces soon after. I have removed the latter part of the sentence, and can make further alterations if you have suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division remained in Essex until 1941". Is the approximate date it left Essex known?
    I have made several edits in this area. It would seem to be closer to November 1940.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the rear of potential landing zones". 1. Does this mean sea-landing, air-landing, or both? 2. Why only to their rear?
    I re-reviewed the source, and have reworded.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1947, the division's insignia was temporarily adopted by the 87th Army Group Royal Artillery." The sentence suggests that it was abandoned by them the same year. Is that correct?
    Unknown. The IWM states that the insignia was adopted on 1 Jan 47, and "At some time, date unknown, the badge was changed" and the unit was disbanded in 1955.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps something like '... but this ceased on or before this unit being disbanded in 1955.'?

That's all from me. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and comments, and have done some work on the article to address them. I have left comments above for you as well.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. A couple of follow ups above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a couple of tweaks per the follow-upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — pass[edit]

Can do-- will conduct a few spotchecks but not many, given the nom's history of producing high quality content. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources are consistently (well) formatted, minor quibbles:
    • Coop 1919 is published by "Liverpool Daily Post Printers", which I think is sufficiently different from the paper to merit changing
      Printers, addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cite publishers "Pen & Sword", "Pen & Sword Military", " Pen & Sword Books" -- are they the same publisher?
      Yes, they are the same publishing house. I just went and looked the three titles up on the OCLC to double check the wording, two use "Pen & Sword Military" and one uses "Pen & Sword" as the publisher. I have tweaked them accordingly.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources seem to be reliable, just a few questions
    • I'm unfamiliar with several of the publishers and couldn't find anything indicating they were reputable: "Sherwood Press" and " Ray Westlake – Military Books"-- what makes the books they publish reliable sources?
      Re: Sherwood Press, Norman Litchfield produced several specialty books about the artillery, with this one being in part to help fund the RA historical trust. This work was also reviewed here in the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research
      The 1989 edition of Becke's work is a reprint of the original. The original being published by Her Majesty's Stationary Office, commissioned by the The Historical Section of the Committe of Imperial Defence, basically an official history.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does the usage of Newbold 1988 align with WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
      Used as a source in the following published secondary sources:
      • Place, Timothy; Military Training in the British Army, 1940-1944: From Dunkirk to D-Day
        Todman, Daniel, Britain's War: Into Battle, 1937-1941
        Operation Sea Lion; Beckett, I.F.W, The Amateur Military Tradition, 1558-1945
        Forczyk, Robert, We March Against England: Operation Sea Lion, 1940–41
      Used as a source in the following thesis:
      • Jones, Alexander, Pinchbeck Regulars? The Role and Organisation of the Territorial Army, 1919-1940
  • Spotchecks to follow Eddie891 Talk Work 23:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 38 [a] [b] good
    • 97 good
    • 107 good
    • 108 good
  • not checking any more because nom has proven record of high quality work. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments and review. I have attempted to respond and action each point that you have brought up.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response, I'm satisfied with the quality of sourcing pass Eddie891 Talk Work 19:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/55th_(West_Lancashire)_Infantry_Division/archive2&oldid=993880055"