Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/38th (Welsh) Infantry Division

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

38th (Welsh) Infantry Division[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

Featured article candidates/38th (Welsh) Infantry Division/archive1

The 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division fought in both the First and Second World Wars. Initially it was raised as part of Kitchner's New Army, and first fought on the Somme. It's capture of Mametz Wood is a key part of the division's history, and it is hoped that by July the article has been promoted to FA status and is on the front page for the 100 year anniversary of that battle. It latter fought at Passchendaele, during the German Spring Offensive, and during the Hundred Days ending the war with a reputation as an elite formation (a stark contrast to its initial reputation as a poorly trained political formation). The division was disbanded following the war, and re-raised for the Second World War where it served for the duration as a defensive formation within the UK and later as a training division.

The article has just passed it's GA review, and I believe it meets the criteria for A-Class. All comments are welcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the maps

Will do.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I awaited the end of the CE that Keith made, and I have now addressed this

Done.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mametz_before.png: when/where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
Reviewing what it states on the IWM and re-reading wiki guidelines, I believe at the time I misunderstood and have mislabeled the image. Can you advise? The IWM states "All Rights Reserved except for Fair Dealing exceptions otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended and revised." Per the Fair dealing in United Kingdom law article, the image is being used for non-commerical research. So the question would be, do we need to delete the image or is there a mire suitable tag for it?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there is a more suitable tag really depends on the answers to the above questions. Do we know? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Knatchbull, 5th Baron Brabourne died 23 February 1939. I have been unable to find information on if the image has been published, other than on the IWM website.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would make it PD in the UK, but without more details I can't say that it would be PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some digging, and have found little else. Considering that the good fellow was a member of the military, would his creations - done on Government time - not come under "Template:PD-UKGov"?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can demonstrate that at the time of creation he met the definition of officer/servant of the Crown, certainly. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided a source that indicates that our chappy was on active duty when he was snapping his photos, and amended the Commons file accordingly. Does this suffice? Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:51st_Division,_Battle_of_Pilckem_Ridge,_31_July_1917.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edinburgh, 1921. Does the Commons' description need additional information, and a different tag?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information certainly, and for Commons you will also need a tag indicating its copyright status in its country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this one should be addressed now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What was Bewsher's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed this one. Bewsher, 1886-1950, per The National Portrait Gallery. Specifically, 26 September 1950 per this website, which is pretty good on its info but not necessarily a RS per wiki guidelines. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a life+70 tag on the image. 1950+70=2020. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the information on the source and author, is there a more appropriate tag? Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of. You could pursue hosting the image locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking with Keith, he notes he accessed the work via the Internet Archive, see here. Does this have any bearing on the matter?

In addition, the opening states that the author was indebted to numerous individuals for access to various resources, including maps. This would imply existing military maps, is that justification enough for PD-UKGOV?

My final question, could you elaborate on the hosting the image locally? Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) No. Internet Archive requires that the image be PD in the US - that fact isn't in dispute.

(2) Not without more details - we can't determine from that statement that this particular map was created by the military. If a source were given for this map specifically that would be a different story - is it? Or is there a blanket statement that all maps are works of serving officers or the like?

(3) Wikimedia Commons requires that images be free in both the US and the country of origin. English Wikipedia allows images that are free only in the US (or even that are under fair use). We know that the image is free in the US. If we cannot determine that it is free in its country of origin, we can still host it on en-wiki. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Nikkimaria. Based off the statement in the book, it is too vague and there are no additional details for the map itself (that I could see). I will upload it locally momentarily.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I did a bit of copy editing. Overall it looks good to me, although I think it would be beneficial to have another copy edit done on it prior to FAC if you are going there. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request at the guild of copyeditors, in preparation for the FA push.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...the 43rd was re-named the 38th (Welsh) Division...": do we know why?
The division's history does not explain. This source comes the closest to proving an explanation, rather than just stating a name change occurred as most others do. It notes that in April, the division changed from being the 43rd to the 38th due to the "the dispersal of the reserve Fourth New Army" (although I cannot find further reference to this, in this source or elsewhere) and also notes that in May 1915 the territorial divisions were assigned numbers rather than just regional designations. Yet I have not been able to find why the Wessex division was assigned the number 43, to see if that provided some enlightenment on the 38th's number change.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just like to note that I found a source that elaborates on the above, and have added a brief explanation to the article: Fourth New Army was disbanded. Fifth New Army became the Fourth. All involved divisions were then renumbered.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"an excellent administer" --> should this be "an excellent administrator"?
Nice catch, fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this doesn't quite flow: "On 1 December 1941, the division was placed on the 'Lower Establishment'.[142] During the war, the Army was divided between 'Higher Establishment' and 'Lower Establishment' formations...". I think perhaps it might be smoother if most of the second sentence was converted to a footnote and maybe the wording tweaked. For instance, "On 1 December 1941, the division was placed on the 'Lower Establishment', having been earmarked for a static home defence role instead of deployment overseas."
I have amended the sentence, and moved some detail to a note.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the References aren't quite in alphabetical order, for instance Renshaw and Rawson out sequence.
Fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, that's it from me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your changes look good, thanks for your efforts. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.