Talk:66th (2nd East Lancashire) Division/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	LeadY Need clarification, the division was originally the 2nd East Lancashire Division, then became the 66th (2nd East Lancashire) Division? wl Western Front at first mention Done suggest The division was formed in 1914, as a duplicate of the 42nd (East Lancashire) Division... Done not sure about the use of scare quotes for Hundred Days Offensive, per WP:SCAREQUOTES Done suggest before finally being Done Formation and home serviceY similar issue with scare quotes for "2nd East Lancashire Division" Done suggest The division was created at the end of August 1914 as the 2nd East Lancashire Division, a second-line formation of the East Lancashire Division. Done wl Brigadier-General, Yeomanry and brigade Done use WP:PERCENT Y (at least, "ten percent" seems to comply) suggest home service by the..  Done suggest three infantry brigades of four battalions each.  Done no need for the comma after number of recruits  Done suggest provided trained reinforcements  Done wl Southport, Kent and Sussex  Done wl RE at first mention of engineers, same with RSigs and RMC  Done how were the third-line battalions constituted, the same as the second line? "The Continent" is a peculiarly British expression, suggest changing it or at least wl Continental Europe  Done given the term "commanding officer" (or CO) is usually reserved for battalion commanders, suggest new and experienced commander  Done wl Major-General; All  Done Flanders and Poelcappelle, 1917Y wl Flanders, Ypres comma after its parent unit suggest Battle of Poelcappelle the 9 October bit is explained further down, putting it here just confused the chronology The 199th Brigade moved into... drop the comma 3rd Australian Division is a redirect, wl it directly here and drop the wl later in this subsection wl creeping barrage to Barrage (artillery)#Moving barrage wl Passendale this Around midday, the 197th Brigade battalions near the village withdrew their flanks; the troops in the centre misinterpreted this and also withdrew to the first objective. is unclear. Did the 197th battalions in the centre withdraw their flanks to the first objective? All  Done Battle of St. Quentin the disbanding of the three battalions isn't properly explained. I assume this was in line with the standard reduction of brigades to three battalions at that time. If this is the case, this should be explicitly stated, along with where the troops went (ie were they dispersed among the other battalions of their brigade as reinforcements?). suggest The division also acquired see earlier suggestion re: CO vs. commander wl chief of staff wl encirclement wl whichever Rosières is relevant, as well as Aubercourt suggest These units were operating under independent leadership, if Malcolm was a South Africa veteran, perhaps mention it when he is first introduced, with a link to whichever Boer War he was involved in suggest a comma after On 31 March Gordon Macready should be in full with his rank at the time Oddly, I don't have a clear source for the rank - probably colonel, but not clear. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC) suggest wl GSO 1 using Staff (military)#British/Commonwealth staff several hundred machine guns the whole thing with Haig is a bit weird. wl Field-Marshal and drop the hyphen, full name for Haig when first mentioned, no explanation of how Bethell (a substantive captain) was friends with Haig This baffled me too; Bond uses the phrase "his polo-playing friend". It is distinctly possible that the friendship was all in Bethell's imagination! That said, it is equally possible they did have some kind of social contact; Bethell's father was a senior officer on the lines of communication and would have been a contemporary of Haig's. Oh, for a good biography... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC) suggest informed him that his division would some punctuation would help here. Suggest remained in action in support of other divisions of XIX Corps during the Battle of the Avre on 4 April, and with XI Corps at the Battle of the Lys (7–29 April) excusing wl's suggest The reduction to cadre meant that the infantry battalions of the division... From 21 March to 5 April, the division had suffered 7,023 casualties, reducing it to around 2,500 all ranks. Rewrote this last bit, hopefully clearer. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC) This whole section now mostly rewritten, some specific points picked up and others now moot. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Reconstitution it seems a bit unbalanced to not list the battalions of the South African Brigade Done now (don't think we have appropriate articles) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Hundred Days Offensive and war's end in Army reserve suggest It returned to the front during the Hundred Days' Offensive, and was held in corps reserve on 3 October, during the Battle of the Beaurevoir Line. On 8 October it saw action at the Battle of Cambrai, which resulted in a break through the German front and an advance of several miles. assuming this is factually correct, bit hard to be absolutely sure from the current prose with advanced patrols and the South African Brigade crossed to capture the eastern side of Le Cateau on 17 October, after much fighting. either In early November after a period in reserve, the division fought at the Battle of the Sambre or After a period in reserve, the division fought at the Battle of the Sambre on 4 November) 4 Nov is early Nov, it's tautological full stop after Landrecies On 7 November, the division leapfrogged past the 25th Division and became one of the leading units of the Fourth Army. wl whichever Avesnes is relevant By the time of the Armistice wl Sivry suggest From 27 September to 12 November, the division incurred 2,195 casualties. from Huy to Rochefort remained there ceased to exist or was disbanded? This whole section now mostly rewritten, some specific points picked up and others now moot. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Second World War per MOS, 66th Infantry Division should not be bolded here, instead, if a common name of the division, bold it in the lead. North-West should be decapitalised suggest The brigade headquarters was then assigned then to the 50th In 1944–45, it with the 78th Done. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	yes, but see my comments on the sources themselves
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	have asked for some community input regarding the Baker source for the WWI stuff, it seems to be relied on very heavily for that part of this article, whole sections have it as the only source, which isn't ideal at all. It probably could be replaced with other sources (the Official History, for example) and that definitely should be done if it is intended that this go to MILHIST ACR. I'll wait for the MILHIST discussion to settle before I make any further comment on Baker. Based on the discussion at MILHIST, I'm going to AGF on Baker. This article does rely very heavily on his website, and that is less than ideal when it appears he is actually just reproducing material from the Official History. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Nafziger is ok-ish, but I have used him in the past and been criticised at higher level reviews such as MILHIST ACR and FLC, because his work does contain some errors. Niehorster is very good (he also contains very occasional errors), but I'm not sure he covers what you need to the level of detail you've gone to. AGF here as well. I note that the sources here are, in reality, all over 60 years old, some nearly 100. An Australian divisional history based largely on Bean (generally published before WWII) would be unacceptable. This is in the same vein, particularly as Baker is effectively reproducing Edmonds. I have mentioned Murland, but there are plenty of books published since the official history that mention the 66th. Will you obtain them? Using an old secondary source for description seems unexceptionable given the use of web sources. Actually, no. I think this is quite significant problem. I have AGF'd the use of Baker (a marginally reliable reproduction of the OH at best), but all it appears to be is a "refreshing" of the OH by Baker. The base material is still the OH. One thing this article lacks is a real examination of the collapse of the 66th Division in the face of the Spring Offensive, something that is apparently glossed over in the OH (assuming Baker is reliable on that and is fully covered here already). As reviewer, it is not my job to find sources so that the nominator can meet the coverage criteria. My gut feel on this wasn't great at the start (regarding Baker) and having worked through it I'm getting the impression that there was an expectation that this would "go through to the keeper" even though it is effectively based on 50-100 year old sources. In over 100 GARs, I've never struck this. At present, my view is that it will fail the coverage criteria on the lack of recent sources. Nearly 100 years later, the OH just doesn't cut it, for British as well as Australian divisions. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I think you're probably right here. I'd gone through a couple of books I had to had which covered the period and found very little, but it looks like this may be showing up extensive gaps in my library! I'd be happy if you want to fail this pending a bit more research on 1918. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I hope that inference about expectation isn't aimed at me. If you want to invalidate the OH on grounds of age, I'd like to see some evidence that it has been superseded or discredited. I have Travers to hand, which is why I amended the paraphrase about the HQ, by removing hyperbole. I know nothing of a collapse, is that what Murland writes? There's no chance of me getting hold of Murland or any other books you recommend, so unless Andrew has a copy I suggest we stop wasting each others' time.Keith-264 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) no citation or mention in the body for the nickname "Clickety-Clicks" in the infobox
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No mention of the fact that Bethell was apparently the youngest British div comd in WWI (Bond says he was 35, not 45), who used ruthless methods to "galvanise and re-equip" the div when he took over (according to Brian Bond (2014) Britain's Two World Wars against Germany Cambridge University Press, p. 55.) Done No use of Retreat and Rearguard- Somme 1918: The Fifth Army Retreat (2014) by Jerry Murland. Has some interesting detail about the 66th during the Spring Offensive. See my comments at the bottom and elsewhere regarding coverage. Parts of Murland are available on Google Books preview, as are other more recent sources with some detail on the 66th. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	the ORBATs seem excessive detail, particularly as only the February 1917 and October 1918 ones relate to ORBATs on operations, the rest relate to peacetime or home service, and could be done with less detail and in prose form. I'm not sure the detailed peacetime ORBATs add anything to the article. The ORBAT section also makes up a quite large slice of the article space, which is probably WP:UNDUE Done
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Both images are clearly PD
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	suggest An observer...Y
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing on hold for seven days for comments to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Passing. A lot of work has been done on this article, well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• A few notes-

• I'm fairly sure we've got over 1914-18 a few time before and considered it generally acceptable, but can't immediately find past discussions - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Reginald Pinney|notes at a previous A-class][. With a couple of exceptions, it's used primarily for organizational details; this is the sort of material that isn't found in the Official History and would normally use a divisional history for. However, there's no divisional history for 66th Division. It might be possible to reconstruct the organizational history from the Official History OOB supplement volumes, and it's what I'd recommend for an FA... but I've never seen those, and AIUI 1914-18 is mostly taken from them in any case.
• I think I agree on Nafziger but, again, there's not much else out there for a short-lived Home Service division ;-)
• I think multiple iterations of the OOB are needed; the alternative is a very messy list with lots of "(until 4 April)" type comments. 1914-18 (and our brigade) articles do this, and the result is that it's very hard to understand what happened. The first and second could possibly be merged (they're much the same but with some renumbering), but the third and fourth are significantly different to what went before. Would the size issue be helped by collapsing them?. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Done 6b. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite agree about several OOBs, they take up space but I think that the alternative is far worse. Apropos my recent edits, there isn't much interest among editors in the articles I mostly contribute to, so if you think any of my edits here are presumptuous or should be discussed first, apologies and please let me know.Keith-264 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw this the other day which might help with compression (assuming I'm not teaching anyone to suck eggs).Keith-264 (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea Keith, I reviewed that one, I think the navbox would be a great idea. It can be collapsed and placed to one side and it is much smaller. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If Andrew can use his Wikimojo to merge the first two as he suggested and the others go in a version of that navbox, it could resolve the conflict between comprehensiveness and brevity and perhaps also be a model for other divisional pages?Keith-264 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well it would work with three separate instances, though (and I'm definitely convinced you need at least three - 1917, 1918, 1939 are all quite different). On the other hand, you could move it to the appropriate section rather than lumping them all at the end. I'll have a play around with the sidebar approach versus collapsing the end tables and see what they look like. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It occurred that that format would need three several boxes, if you wanted to use it or it would be mile long when open ;O) I'm happy to defer to your wikimojo.Keith-264 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I would at least collapse the OOBs. It really overpowers the article and makes it a bit "listy". Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Curious about semi-colons in the second para of Formation and home service. Are they really necessary?Keith-264 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Semicolons: I tend to overuse them so possibly not, but I think it helps to distinguish between the brigades. Breaking them fully into sentences would feel too bitty.

I'd prefer commas because I'm an anglophone monoglot.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

OOBs: tried "individually" collapsing the OOBs but this doesn't work very well; there's some kind of messy table intersection going on. Either we can have four separately collapsible entries with headers, which might look a bit raggedy, or one collapsible entry with the columns all aligned for tidiness - happy to defer on which you think is prettier but have used the latter for now. Sidebar method didn't work as well as I'd hoped. Thoughts?

Looks OK to me.

Bethell: good catch! The Army List & Who's Who both confirm 35 (turned 36 in September '18). I hadn't seen the note about his youthfulness; I'd always remembered Ironside as being youngest, but that may be hinging on promotion to MG rather than divisional command. I'll look into this one a bit more and see if a biography exists, but there do seem to be some remarkable anecdotes out there... Andrew Gray (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Bethell is now in there. I've sadly left out the best quote, by his GSO.1 - "a wonderful fighting soldier, but a terror to the administration of an army". One for a later biography... Andrew Gray (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Gleaned some details from the 1918 OH volumes, Travers appears to have misconstrued the command changes in March, implying a collapse when the OH records the headquarters going forward. I have left the passage in since it's cited and rather than add a long explanation have added the OH version.Keith-264 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Found a few details about Bethell in the OH and the 25th Div history.Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Addressed suggestions above, don't think I missed any. Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Gleanings from later books

Griffith, P. (1996). Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army's Art of Attack 1916–1918. London: Yale. ISBN 0-30006-663-5.

"Major-General Bethell was another notorious pirate, who re-created 66th Division from scratch in the autumn of 1918, stealing guns, ammunition trains and even whole infantry brigades from their officially intended formations, to forge them all into a successful vanguard for Fourth Army's October advances." p. 28

"... (e.g. 66th Division effectively vanished after the March onslaught on Fifth Army but reappeared as a spearhead of Fourth Army, complete with a reconstituted South African brigade, for the last two months of the war)." pp. 218-219

Sheffield, G.; Bourne, J. (2005). Douglas Haig: War Diaries and Letters 1914–1918 (1st ed.). Weidenfeld & Nicholson. ISBN 0-297-84702-3. "I also saw the three brigadiers, Onslow, 7 Brigade, Bethell 74 Brigade and Pratt 75 Brigade...." "Bethell is a Brevet Major in 7th Hussars having gone from the Indian infantry (Gurkhas) to that corps." p. 247

"Brigadier-General (later Major-General Sir) (Hugh) Keppel Bethell ('Beetle') (1882-1947), GOC 74 Brigade, 1916-18. He took over the shattered 66th Division in March 1918 and led it for the rest of the war; he was - at thirty-five - the youngest British divisional commander of both world wars." p. 247, fn 4. Keith-264 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Travers, T. (1987). The Killing Ground: The British Army, the Western Front & the Emergence of Modern War 1900–1918 (Pen & Sword 2003 ed.). London: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 0-85052-964-6.

"... by 26 March, 66 division, commanded by Gough's Chief of Staff in 1917, Neill Malcolm, simply ceased to function as a unit." "By 27 March 66 Division HQ had disappeared and the enemy was through the gap between the division and its neighbour." p. 233.

I fear that this exhausts my sources less than a century old. Did anyone ever find the HQ? Keith-264 (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, they would be good additions, no doubt. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Who's Who in World War I by Bourne has more bio info on Bethell. You'll need to get a hold of someone with Questia access. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Bloody Red Tabs: General Officer Casualties of the Great War 1914-1918 by Davies and Maddocks mentions the CRA 66th Division (Brigadier-General Arthur Lowe) being killed in November 1917. IMO, death of a one-star (even in WWI) is worth mentioning. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Now added - believe it or not, he wasn't the first; commander of 198 Brigade was killed by shellfire shortly after they arrived. Unfortunately I got BRT from a Google ebook so no pagenumbers. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

[1] the PhD original of British Generalship on the Western Front 1914-1918: Defeat into Victory (Military History and Policy) 2006 by Simon Robbins has

Bethell, Major-General Sir (Hugh) Keppel "Beetle" (1882- 1947) Charterhouse and R.M.A. Entered Royal Artillery, 1901; p.s.c.; transferred to 9th Gurkha Rifles, 1905, and 7th Hussars, 1914; Staff Captain, Meerut Cavalry Brigade, 1914- 15; Brigade-Major, 8th Cavalry Brigade, 1915; 0_C. 1/ Northamptonshire Regiment, 1915-16; G.0.C. 74th Brigade, 1916-18; D.S.0., 1917; G.0.C. 66th Division, 1918-19; C.M.G., 1918; C.B., 1919; G.0.C. Presidency and Assam District, 1930-34; retired, 1935. A headstrong character and at 36 the youngest British Divisional Commander on the Western Front. His father also served during the war! (p. 383) Keith-264 (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

22 Mar

Watts' XIX Corps, strengthened by 1st Cavalry Division, faced the renewed attacks of Marwitz's left wing, starting with a three-hour bombardment. The British 66th Division was driven fighting from its Battle Zone; seven of its detachments broke out of encirclement. Six tanks and dismounted hussars counter-attacked at noon, temporarily easing the pressure, but at 12.45 p.m. Watts ordered his two original divisions to retreat behind 50th Division, now frantically digging in along eight miles of the Rear Zone Green Line. p. 45

30 Mar North of the Luce 66th Division was helped by three 39th Division counter-attacks but Demuin eventually fell. Watts sent in 12th Lancers who retook a wood that became Lancer Wood. p. 76

This is the extract from Bourne's Who's Who in WWI: pp. 24–25

Bethell, (Hugh) Keppel (1882-1947) British military commander, who assumed command of the shattered 66th (2/East Lancashire) Division in March 1918 at the age of 35, making him the youngest British divisional commander of both world wars. Bethell, universally known as 'The Beetle', began the war as a captain in the 7th Hussars, but he had also served in the Royal Artillery and Indian army, an indication of his restless character that abhorred inaction. Neither superiors nor subordinates were exempt from his towering rages and impossible, often contradictory, demands. His career on the Western Front as staff captain, brigade major, infantry battalion, brigade and divisional commander was marked by complete contempt for all rules, regulations and procedures. One of his staff officers, Walter Guinness, described him as 'the most insubordinate person that I have ever come across'. He was notorious for poaching officers and stealing equipment from other units. In March 1918 he sought to reinforce the firepower of his new command by commandeering all the weapons from the British army's Machine-Gun School at Camiers, reassuring his (totally unauthorised) staff that he would soon square things with his friend 'Duggie'. (In fact, Field-Marshal HAIG was not amused; 66th Division was pulled out of the line and sent to train American drafts.) In the 'Hundred Days', however, Bethell got his chance. His division, supported by two squadrons of the Royal Air Force, a brigade of cavalry and other units, operated as the all-arms spearhead of the Fourth Army in the advance to the Rhine.

Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Quick update (as of 27/1) - I've now updated most of the article except the Spring Offensive, and I'm working through that - I think I've more or less got my head around what happened but I'm still assembling it all. I'll go through after that's done and check all the smaller points have been followed up. Apologies for taking a bit longer than hoped! Andrew Gray (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries, I like the way you're approaching it. Happy to give you some more time. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • 1300 words was more than I intended for the Spring Offensive, but at least it's detailed! Unfortunately they seem to vanish from the sources around 28 March, but it's clear they hung around Amiens until basically falling apart. Content now all in place, I think, and will give it a close copyedit tomorrow.

The 66th remnants were withdrawn 30/31 March, added a couple of items of local colour; Little was a Lieut-Colonel so I assume a battalion commander.Keith-264 (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)