Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 70th Infantry Division was a short lived British Second World War division. Having formed from the 6th Infantry Division, which fought in Syria and Crete, the division relieved the Australians in Tobruk and eventually broke out as part of Operation Crusader. With the Japanese entry into the war, the division was shipped to India were it was eventually disbanded and its troops handed over to the Chindits (a pretty controversial move). The article has just passed it's GA review, and I am seeking to further elevate it's status en route to eventually making it a FAC. All comments welcome. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this at peer review, and have made a few edits (please check you are happy with these). I only have one suggestion: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "File:British WWII 6th Infantry Division.png": the licence for this probably should be PD-Shape, not PD-UKGov
Sorry for the lateness of my response. I have amended the license per your comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • "On 1st September 1939" Per MOS:DATE, this should be "On 1 September 1939". Also, shouldn't it be 3 September, the date on which Britain declared war? (And don't think I didn't take Playfair off the shelf to check the reference.)
Changed the format per your comment. I have expanded the opening lines of the section a tad to explain the German invasion initiated the war, and the UK entered on the 3rd.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't we have ranks for O'Connor, Auchinleck, Rommel, Blamey and Wilson?
Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The issue came to a head on 18 July, when Thomas Blamey (commander of the 2AIF, and deputy commander Middle East Command) wrote a letter to Claude Auchinleck—the new commander of all forces in North Africa and the Middle East" The second link seems superfluous, and may confuse the reader into thinking that this was not the Middle East Command.
Link removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from Blamey in the box doesn't contribute much.
Removed the quote box.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The war diary of the German 90th Light Division described the days actions" should be "day's actions"
Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supported by a ad hoc formation" should be "supported by an ad hoc formation"
Fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider red-linking George Symes, who could have an article (Hmmm he is linked down below)
Added a link.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that he became Wingate's second in command. You should mention that he was senior to Wingate.
Mentioned it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the newly arrived 81st (West Africa) Division could be used in place" should be "in its place"
Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wingate (now a major-general)" You don't need to link major-general here. Other duplicate links: Royal Navy and Fourteenth Army

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate links removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your comments. I have made the changes you have both suggested.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • Images lack alt text so you might consider added it (suggestion only - not an ACR req though of cse).
    • In the lead "...The Royal Navy transported the division to Tobruk..." when?
    • "...to relieve the mainly Australian garrison besieged within the port...", in its brevity this lacks context. I think some indication of the length of the siege is necessary here. For instance: "...to relieve the mainly Australian garrison that had held the besieged port for nearly 8 months..." or something like that.
    • Repetitive prose here: "...reformed in Egypt.[2] Lacking artillery or other supporting arms, the reforming..." (reformed / reforming)
    • Is there a typo or missing words here: "...The Germans were able to penetrate into Heraklion resulting in the streets" before Anglo-Greek ..." (I couldn't understand the streets part)
    • "The supporting Matilda tanks..." - perhaps wikilink to Matilda II here?
    • "The next day, George Symes was given command of the division...", rank for Symes?
    • Is there a missing word here? "This operation saw the 77th Indian Infantry Brigade operate behind the Japanese lines, supplied via air drops, ambushed Japanese troops and destroyed rail lines..." → "This operation saw the 77th Indian Infantry Brigade operate behind the Japanese lines, supplied via air drops, it ambushed Japanese troops and destroyed rail lines." or something like that.
    • "Philip John Gardner won the Victoria Cross during the fighting." Rank for Gardner?
    • "During the action, James Jackman, Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, was killed and posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross..." Jackman's rank?
    • In the refs you have Woodburn (2004) and Woodburn (2004a) - I'd suggest this would be more consistent as Woodburn (2004a) and Woodburn (2004b)
    • Are there figures available for the number of casualties sustained by the division during the campaigns it participated in (either broken down by campaign or in total)? If so they probably should be added for completeness. Anotherclown (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and comments. Due to personal issues, I will not be able to address these until early next week.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the article as suggested, save for the alt text (I will get around to that). The only other issue is casualties: I have looked everywhere and have yet to find a source that provides the losses 70th Division suffered during it's role in the siege or the Crusader fighting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. If the information isn't available then its a non issue. I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I worked some on this at the PR, and you've got your 3 supports, so I'll just leave some comments.
  • See WP:INTEXT. Quoted statements need at least a clue in the text as to where they came from. (One fix is to paraphrase, of course).
  • "The headquarters was then assigned all troops—with the exception of the 7th Armoured Division—based there.": The headquarters was then assigned all troops based there, with the exception of the 7th Armoured Division.
  • "This raid evolved due to early successes, in two months the Western Desert Force had": semicolon instead of comma
  • "Due to the logistical problems in maintaining substantial forces on the Libya–Egypt border, Mersa Matruh, 200 miles (320 km) west of Alexandria and 120 miles (190 km) from the border, was the forward British base ...": garden path. You could try "... Mersa Matruh was the forward British base ..." - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dank for your work on the article and your comments. I have implemented the changes you have suggested. In regards to your final comment, I have placed the distances in parenthesis. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't help the garden path problem. When all the reader sees is "Due to the logistical problems in maintaining substantial forces on the Libya–Egypt border, Mersa Matruh,", Mersa Matruh is most likely part of the prepositional phrase, i.e., one of the places where they kept forces. You have to get through 15 more words before you get the clue ("was") that Mersa Matruh is actually the subject of the sentence. The clue should come sooner than that, to help readers parse as they go. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had another crack at this, what do you think?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 00:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ThanksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: could you do an image review on this one, please? It appears otherwise ok for promotion. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Tobruk2Sollum1941_en.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kirrages, the editor who uploaded the file, is not very active at the moment. I have left him a message on his talkpage and for the moment replaced the image with another map - from the commons - that has source information. I assume this should suffice?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria what do you reckon? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/70th_Infantry_Division_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=682639913"