Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/47th (London) 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.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

47th (London) Infantry Division[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

The 2nd London Division was a second-line formation, formed in 1939 as a motor division. Rather than being deployed or utilized in this role, it (like most other 2nd line divisions) was assigned to guarding vulnerable points and home defense duties. Converted into an infantry division in 1940, it was later renamed the 47th (London) Infantry Division. It remained in the UK throughout the war, notable for establishing the first Battle School; a training course aimed at providing practical experience at field work and more life like combat training. The division was dispersed in 1944, and reformed from the 76th Infantry (Reserve) Division as the 47th Infantry (Reserve) Division; a training formation that lasted until just after the war ended. The article passed its GAN and has been given the once over by the GOCE.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, I had a look at this during the GAN, and have a few more suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead "2nd (London) Division", but in the infobox "2nd London Division"
Double checked with Joslen, and the latter is correct. I have corrected this in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest mentioning Ramsden in the text, given he appears in the infobox
He was there before I edited the article, and I just left him there. Relooking over the article, I don't believe he belongs as he was not notable considering his role in the division so I have removed him.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"File:The British Army in the United Kingdom 1939-45 H30960.jpg": suggest cropping the black border off this image to make it more visually appealing (if you need a hand with this, I can help)
I don't have access to anything fancy, but I did crop and reupload.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Historian David French wrote; --> suggest replacing the semi colon with a comma here
Did soEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
assigned to Western Command.[40] and then: adjust punctuation
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 12th's 114th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery and the remnants of the 36th Infantry Brigade was assigned to the 2nd London Division --> "The 114th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery and the remnants of the 36th Infantry Brigade was assigned to the 2nd London Division at this time."
Adjusted per your recommendationEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the War Office began disbanding divisions.[68][69][70] As part of this restructure --> " the War Office began disbanding divisions and restructuring the Army.[68][69][70] As part of this process..."
Adjusted per your recommendationEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
During 1944, the British Army: is there a way to start this paragraph differently so that it isn't so similar to the start of the previous paragraph?
Not concise, but perhaps: The casualties suffered by the British Army in five years of war had, by 1944, resulted in a severe shortage of manpower.?
Yes that would work, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
potential recruiting value: perhaps it could be clarified what recruiting value the designation of the 47th had?
I have reworded the sentence a tad to better reflect the source, although it doesn't elaborate more than what is in the article now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the article is currently sitting in the 1944 category, but I wonder if it should in fact be the 1946 category?
I have added the extra categoryEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
might need to be careful with the Newbold source as it is a thesis. Do you know if it was accepted/supervised by someone who was a specialist in the field? Did the author become published in the field later?
Unsure on the first question; the King's College London website has that part left blank and nothing appears to be mentioned on the paper itself. I believe the answer to the latter is yes; same website shows at least one publication in a different field. I have found that his paper has been referenced by several secondary sources on the subject of Sealion etc.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably ok in these circumstances. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
with regards to the citation to the Keep Military Museum website. Do we know the credentials of the people putting this site together, or the sources they used in writing the cited article? (Just wanting to check from an RS point of view)
Regimental museums are, to the best of my knowledge, a mix of full time staff and volunteers, with the goal of preserving the history of their respective regiments. The "Resources Held at the Museum" section indicates they have access to primary sources related to the regiment as well as published secondary sources. The Keep has articles wrote by volunteers, and are marked as such whereas the history articles are not (although that does not mean they were not necessarily written by volunteers). The history articles lack cites, although the initial page indicates the gallery's (at least) are based off the museums' collection and other relevant sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'd suggest trying to replace this source, if possible, before taking the article to FAC in these circumstances. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, that's it from me -- its time for sleep here -- thanks for your efforts with the article and good luck for taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As always, thank you for the review and comments. I have made changes for your review, and left some comments above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Consider adding alt text.
Added some alt textEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Could we add the publisher location for Hall? (London.)
AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Williams: upper case S for "soldiers" please.
AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image and source review, I made the requested changes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

All looks good. A few notes just to prove that I did read it:

"On 29 March, the British Secretary of State for War Leslie Hore-Belisha announced plans to increase the strength of the part-time Territorial Army (TA) from 130,000 men to 340,000, doubling the number of divisions" Commas required around "Leslie Hore-Belisha"

Delete "that had hindered recruiting" as duplication

" British military doctrine development during the inter-war period resulted in three types of division by the end of the 1930s; the infantry division, the mobile division (later called the armoured division), and the motor division." Replace semicolon with colon.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

The division's battalions were all initially London-based Unlink London because of commen term.
and defending Royal Air Force (RAF) airfields.[33][28] Re-order the refs.
hostile intent in the British Isles came ashore at Fishguard during the Napoleonic Sea of blue here.

Not much to say. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, and sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I have tweak the article per your comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5: I wonder if you feel able to either support or oppose this nomination yet? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5, just following up here, can you please confirm your support? Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments support by Pendright[edit]

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

On 15 March 1939, Germany breached the terms of the agreement by invading and occupying the remnants of the Czech state.

The proper name is Czechslovakia.

Amended EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 March, the British Secretary of State for War Leslie Hore-Belisha announced plans to increase the strength of the part-time Territorial Army (TA) from 130,000 men to 340,000, doubling the number of divisions.

The sentence might be better served by removing the comma after March and setting Leslie Hore-Belisha off with commas.

My understanding would be that the comma is required after the date. I have added in the commas around Hore-Belisha as they do seem to be required.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The plan was for existing TA divisions that were referred to as the first-line to recruit over their establishments; recruitment was aided by an increase in pay for Territorials, the removal of restrictions on promotion that had hindered recruiting, the construction of better-quality barracks and an increase in supper rations.

This is a long 50 word sentence; you might consider breaking it up.

I have broken this up and made a few changesEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formation:

German motorised divisions contained three brigades and were as fully equipped as a regular infantry division while their smaller, light divisions contained a tank battalion.

Add the definite before German motorised divisions.
Place a semicolon or comma after infantry division to join the independent clauses.

AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The British motor division was fully motorised and capable of transporting all of their infantry but was "otherwise much weaker than normal infantry divisions" [or] their German counterparts because it was [made up] of only two brigades, had two artillery regiments as opposed to an infantry division's three, and had no tanks.

[or] should probably be of?

So the British motor division was weaker than British infantry divisions, as well as the German variants.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[made up] The Oxford and Cambridge English Dictionaries spell it with a hyphen - made-up

AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider breaking up this long sentence too.

Broken up and minor tweaks madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Home defence:

Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces General Walter Kirke, believing the East of England was under threat of invasion as a result of German operations in mainland Europe, transferred several divisions to defend the coast.

Consider this: The Commander-in-Chief of Home Forces, General Walter Kirke, believing the East of ... - or reversing it might be preferable.
Add the definite article between of and German.

Both points actioned per your commentsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of this effort involved temporarily splitting the division into two brigade groups, one of which moved to the Suffolk coastline to supplement the 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division on the east coast while the other remained in Cambridgeshire with troops assigned to varying duties that included the protection of vulnerable points, construction of defensive positions, and defending Royal Air Force (RAF) airfields.

A 63 word sentence would not be considered reader friendly by most style guides.- consider breaking it up.

Broken upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 114th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery and the remnants of the 36th Infantry Brigade was assigned to the 2nd London Division at this time.

It seems that was assigned should be were, but maybe it's a British thing?

I have fixed thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By May 1942, the division was based in Hampshire and tasked with countering any raids conducted by German forces along the coast.

Add the definite article between by and German forces.

AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wind down:

Over the following six months, up to 75 per cent of these men would be deployed to reinforce [the] 21st Army Group ...

Add [the]

AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pendright, thank you for your review and sorry about the delay in actioning your comments. I have attempted to address the majority, and left a few comments above on those I have not.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EnigmaMcmxc: All good here, but I would appreciate an explanation of your response to my comment under background: Is the comma after 29 March required because of the date format, or because it serves as the introductory phrases? Pendright (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that an introductory clause containing a date, in best practice, should end with a comma.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge of British English is more extensive than mine; a Google search didn’t come across any such rule. However, it did indicate that an introductory phrase is usually more than three words before a comma is used. In any event, I’m glad to support this nomination.Pendright (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2020 (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.