Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)/archive1

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) 16 October 2021 [1].

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The British 2nd Division was initially formed in 1809, to serve during the Peninsular War. After the conclusion of fighting, it was stood down. This pattern would follow until the end of the century. New divisions were formed to fight at Waterloo (were it played an important role in the defeat of the final French attack of the day), and again formed to fight in the Crimean War. Several other similarly numbered divisions were formed during the century, but were not acknowledged as being part of the division's lineage by Everard Wyrall who wrote the division's First World War history (passing mention has been made to each of these formations, but there is not detailed campaign history). The final ad hoc division was raised to fight in the Second Boer War, where it fought or was present during most of the major battles in the Relief of Ladysmith. In 1902, it became a permanent formation within the structure of the British Army. It went on to fight in France in the First and the Second World Wars, and also fought in Burma during the latter. During the Cold War, it formed part of the British Army of the Rhine in Germany and became an armoured formation. The final decades of the division's history were based within the United Kingdom as a training formation. The article has had the GoCE give it a pass, and has gone through the GA and A-Class reviews. The article is supplemented by three lists that detail the commanding officers, orders of battle, and Victoria Cross winners. The latter two are featured lists, and the list for the commanding officers is currently going through the featured list review process. This is a large article, not 100 per cent confident that it will pass, but here we go!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Citations: there are several hyphens, rather than en dashes, in page ranges; there are p. and pp, errors, eg cites 163 and 157. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that. I have gone though the citations, and tried to fix the various ones that were not up to snuff. Hopefully, caught them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cites 202, 203, 204: are there really pages numbered I and III?
The report is broken up into chapters. Each page denotes the chapter and the page number. Each chapter starts the page count afresh. Please see: http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-129-181-c-21.pdf
  • Further reading:
  • Three works have no publisher location.
  • I have entered two, unable to locate the third (per below)
  • One has no ISBN/OCLC.
  • I have not been able to locate either for this work. Per the IWM, the publication location is not mentioned and it is in a spiral binding. This makes me think that it was an internally generated small print document made for that particular veteran's association, and the IWM has a copy and that's about it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a rhetorical question. Chapters should be shown as "|chapter=" in the mark up, now as pages. eg

Koon, Sam (2015) [2011]. "Phalanx and Legion: the "Face" of Punic War Battle". In Hoyos, Dexter (ed.). A Companion to the Punic Wars. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. pp. 77–94. ISBN 978-1-1190-2550-4.

I would generally do that if it was some sort of anthology, but in this case it is single report published together under the single department head. I note that sfn|Mason|1975|chapter=I|p=22 will not work; its one or the other.
Are you suggesting several entries, such as:
I just want to clarify, as I am little confused and want to proceed forward as best as I can.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. It is usual to give page ranges for individual chapters. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have updated the article per the above (including the page range).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having done this much, I may as well recuse and complete the source review.

  • The two Roy works need publisher locations.
    AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cumulative Effect of Cuts ..., on what basis are you listing it under S?
    I think I placed it here, due to the cite using a bit of shorthand with the "Second Report of the Expenditure Committee". I have moved it to its alphabetical place, considering it starts with "The" as a result of the full title". Advisable to rename the inline cite?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palmer et al: the title should be in title case.
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This website includes photographs of the weathered memorial and faded central red star". Suggest → 'This website includes photographs of the [specify which] memorial.'
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lionel Ellis, who wrote the volume focused on the BEF in France for the History of the Second World War, wrote the division" Is it possible to avoid using "wrote" twice in the sentence?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have spotted at least one p./pp. error. Could you recheck.
    I have gone back over them, and I dont see it. Clearly I am overlooking it, but could you be so kind to point it out?
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cant thank you enough! After seeing what change you made, I went and looked at the prior version and it still took me a while to manually spot it, even knowing what I was looking for. Don't know why it caused me such grief!

EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

I supported this article at A-class and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Just flagging that licensing issues have been addressed but captions are still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be honest and say I am complete crap at things like this! I have gone through, and tried to get them? Hopefully, I succeeded!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check that all captions are appropriately cited - for example McDermond seems to be mentioned only in caption
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Sir_Frederick_Adam_by_William_Salter.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    I will see if I can dig up some publication info. Prior to that though, doesn't the UK PD+100 in addition to the US-PD via point 3 (Uruguay Round Agreements Act) factor in?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I found several references to the piece of artwork in works dated to the 1800s, but they did not have an actual reproduction of it. The earliest I found, is in a NPG catalogue from 1981. Based off that and the updated tags, I believe it meets points 1, 2, and 3 for US PD in addition to UK PD. Hopefully, that addresses this one?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:John_McDermond_Saving_Colonel_Haly_by_Louis_William_Desanges_(c._1900).png. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, not sure when it was first published. However, I have found that it was published prior to the 1996. So I believe the US/UK PD tags cover points 1, 2, and 3. Look forward to additional feedback on these two.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For both of these, was there a copyright notice in the publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I have missed something, the NPG collection does not state the copyright status of the works shown. In the acknowledgement section, it provides a thank you to all "public and private" owners. For the Adam's portrait, it does not mention anything specific, and seems to imply that it was in a private collection until 1929, when it was donated to the NPG. As for the McDermond painting, the article does not include any information on the copyright status of the work. The journal states on the backpage that "authors are expected to seek reproduction permission themselves". Other than mentions that the paintings exist, I have not been able to find anything to state they were published prior to these works (although I am not 100 per cent that these are the first time they were both published).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Publication means when it was made available to the public. In the case of an artwork, when it was donated to the NPG counts as publication. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure if it counts, but the National Army Museum states that they acquired the McDermond (link to painting updated, as there was duplicate copies on the commons) was acquired in 1958 when it was gifted to them by Wantage Urban District Council (the council became defunct in the 1970s).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, display does not count as publication for US copyright purposes: see definition. The reason I ask about copyright notice is per point 2 of the URAA tag - "published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't the lack of copyright info therefore cover point 2?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep! Just wanted to make note that the donation did not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

An interesting article, packing a good deal of information into its 8,000 words, but the prose is not, in my view, up to FA standard. Some suggestions for improving it:

  • I notice some odd spellings. Why use the Americanism "defense" instead of the British "defence"? You need to spell manoeuvre/manoeuver consistently, the adjectival "war time" instead of "wartime" looks odd, and I assume "Japanase" is merely a typo.
    Typo fixed, use of manoeuvre made consistent, and the defence issue addressed. If you do note any additional Americanisms, please point them out!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the United Kingdom – you insist on spelling out the name at each mention (28 times), which seems odd – and a little obtrusive – as you use BEF, BAOR etc at second and later mentions of those entities.
    I have went though, and it has not only used a mere two times within the prose. I have either abbreviated the rest, tweaked the prose, or changed for British Empire etc as needed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, only two such formations…" – this is the first of eight "howevers" in the article, most of which add nothing of value to the reader and just clog up the prose.
    I have zapped the majorityEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…was the brigade. These consisted of…" – crashing of gears changing from singular to plural.
    I have reworded this part. Does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historian Clive Ponting…" – rather clunky false title, something you generally avoid elsewhere in the text.
    False titles eliminated. I have moved any descriptive into a clause after introducing them, as naming their profession has been a request during prior reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a similar organisation … as used by the Prussian Army" – not very good English, I think. Perhaps something on the lines of a similar organisation … to that used by the Prussian Army"?
    I have updated the sentence per your comment, and made a further change to the followingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the fighting", without going as far as Fowler who calls "prior to" "incongruous" when used as it is used here, I still wonder why a plain "before" wouldn't do here and later.
    Fair enough, changes madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commenced" – a genteelism: a plain "began" or "started" would be stronger.
    The later has been used as a replacementEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "counterattack" (here and later) – the OED, Chambers and Collins all hyphenate "counter-attack".
    All updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to retake Deville Wood that had been captured and then lost to a German counterattack" – Here and later there is some failure to distinguish between "restrictive" (i.e. defining) and "non-restrictive" (i.e. descriptive) clauses. It's the difference between "reviews that are pedantic are a pain" – which is possibly true – and "reviews, which are pedantic, are a pain" which means all reviews are pedantic, and is patently untrue. This sentence needs a non-restrictive construction: "to retake Deville Wood, which had been…".
    I think I have fixed this!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Battle of Ancre that started on 12 November" – as opposed to the Battle of Ancre that didn't start on 12 November? Another restrictive clause that needs to be non-restrictive: "the Battle of Ancre, which started on 12 November"
    A few changes have been made based off this suggestion. I hope they improved the wording, rather than make more problems!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This included significant fighting – what did it signify, exactly? You mean "heavy" or some such adjective.
    After rechecking the source, I was attempting to highlight that these two events were the division's main actions during the fighting. Does the rewording work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notably, one battery … with a notable" – a bit much too notability?
    I have reworded the former sentence, and left the latter intact. I hope the change is okay?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wyrall noted some of the division's old hands had last marched" – not grammatically wrong, but could do with a "that" after noted. See p. 624 here (the link is to the second (1966) edition of Fowler, but the current (2015) edition, which is not accessible online, follows similar precepts).
    I have made the suggested tweak, and thank you for the linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "per the Allied Dyle Plan" – The old advice "prefer good English to bad Latin" applies here. Replacing the "per" with something in English such as "in accordance with" would make for better reading.
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "declared war on Germany in response to their invasion of Poland" – singular noun (Germany) with plural pronoun (they).
    I think I have addressed this one nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite achieving tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced the BEF to withdraw…" – a dangling participle. The wording makes "strategic developments" the subject of the sentence, though you intend the subject to be the BEF. Something on the lines of "Although the BEF achieved tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced it to withdraw" would be better.
    Tweaks madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fighting provided the division with the dubious honour of having the highest casualties" – WP:EDITORIAL unless you have a direct quote for "dubious honour".
    Editorial removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lionel Ellis, who authored the volume" – "authored"? Why not a plain "wrote", or "Lionel Ellis, author of the volume"? Likewise for John Nott, later.
    Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It had been intended for the division to reinforce the British Eighth Army" – does one "intend for", rather than "intend that"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but no move took place as a result of the successful Second Battle of El Alamein" – I think I see what this means – the move was called off as a consequence of the victory at Alamein – but the sentence is ambiguous as it stands.
    I have tweaked this portion of the article, and expanded a little. I hope the changes are more clear.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2nd Division spent 1942 through 1944 training" – unexpected and not particularly welcome Americanism in a BrE article. "through" should be "to", surely?
    Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a proposed landing that would take place Rangoon" – a preposition seems to be missing after "place".
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The availability of British infantry within India was scarce" – can availability be scarce? Something might be scarce or its availability restricted but I'm not sure you can roll the two phrases into one.
    Opted for the latter, hope that worksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In order to maintain the division in the field" – there are those (of whom I am not one) who get quite exercised about "in order to", insisting it should be just "to". It doesn't bother me, but I mention it for your consideration.
    It does simplify it, so tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3,500 British soldiers, of which 2,500 were dispatched" – "which" seems an odd word here: one might expect "whom".
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forces that were not going to be utilised" – Fowler calls "utilise" instead of "use" "an example of the pretentious diction that prefers the long word".
    Less pretentious edit made :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were selected to be relieved, due to the increasing shortage of British manpower": In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
    Played it safe with the latter optionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the increasing shortage of British manpower in Asia that impeded the ability to maintain them at full strength – another "that" restrictive clause where you mean a "which," non-restrictive one. As it stands the sentence means that there was at least one other manpower shortage that did something else.
    I have replaced the "that" with a "which", and have also moved a comma. I think this should flow and read betterEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to repatriate soldiers, who had served in Asia for at least three years and eight months, back to the United Kingdom..." – Contrariwise, the commas here turn what is clearly meant to be a restrictive clause into a non-restrictive one. Blitzing the commas will do the trick.
    Commas removed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the defence of Western Europe from the Soviet Union" – does one defend something from something rather than against?
    Sentence tweaked, hopefully I didn't go a little overboard when it could have been a simpler fix?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The historian Marc Donald DeVore argued the politically forced change" – another place where a "that" seems called for.
    Missing "that" addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Territorial Army personnel that would arrive from the United Kingdom" – "that" isn't wrong, but isn't it more usual to use "who" when referring to people?
    Switched to "who"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reforms envisioned" – do reforms envision things? And is "envision" a fancy way of saying "envisage"? And is "envisage" a fancy way of saying "foresee" or "intend" or some such?
    Defancified x2: intended it isEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but early training found this to be impractical" – "showed" rather than "found"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a flexible task force that would be formed by the GOC" – you need to tell us what a GOC is, or provide a blue link.
    Full title now included, along with blue linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowed the GOC to tailor their force" – singular noun with plural pronoun. No need to be frightened of using "his" here, as everyone concerned was a man.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was indicated via two white stars" – a plain "by" instead of "via"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments and suggestions are helpful. – Tim riley talk 11:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review and I really appreciate your comments to help whip the article into shape. I have started working my way through them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to address the remaining comments that you made. I really appreciate the assistance, and look forward to further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! I neglected to put this review on my watch-list and promptly forgot about it. I am impressed with the thorough responses to my long list of quibbles, and am now happy to withdraw my reservations about the prose of the article. I know too little about the substance to comment on that, and leave it to more expert reviewers to make their judgements, but as far as the prose and presentation go, I am happy to support the promotion of the article to FA. Tim riley talk 19:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thank you!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Mainly focusing on prose. I'm not finding a lot to criticise.

  • acquired the nickname: the "Observing Division" I don't think the colon is necessary here and I generally dislike colons in prose.
    What colon? Now, removed! :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid passive voice (eg, A further 516 casualties were suffered)
    This particular example has been rewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fighting had cost 1,320 casualties and included Stewart I think you mean Stewart was included in the casualties, not (just) in the fighting.
    I changed this sentence up, so it should read correctly as you indicatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oman wrote he was a "splendid fighting man if a careless and tiresome subordinate" Is this really relevant to the division? It seems to me it would be better in Stewart's biography.
    Quite, and removed from this articleEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • described him as "the only British commander with even the remotest experience of European war", for his service in the Peninsular War doesn't quite make sense to me. Would "based on" (or similar) work better than "for"?
    Tweaked per your recommendation
  • Notably, George V, and the Prince of Wales – the future Edward VIII – , reviewed the division on 3 December. Why is this notable? Royal inspections of division weren't especially uncommon, were they? Also, I'd use parentheses to avoid having the comma after the dash. And you use the adjective "notable" quite a bit through the article, which gets repetitive and is arguable editorialising (we shouldn't be telling the reader what the most important pieces of information are).
    I have notably going through and tried to get rid of quite a notable number of my notables! Your right about royal inspections not being uncommon, although the POW touring the trenches was something new that happened. Although, whenever the king shows up to inspect a unit or formation, it always seems to be a standout moment within the sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fighting divisions with such fine records as that held by the 2nd Division were not allowed long out of the line" You need a ref straight after a direct quote.
    I would, generally, argue that it should be at the end of the sentence when incorporated. But, I have split up what was wrote, and moved the cites etc. to address your point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a lot of short sentences, usually of the form "this caused ...", "this was ..." etc. Try to vary it to keep the reader's attention if they're reading the whole thing. Likewise the ", with" construction to join two parts of a sentence, which is also frowned upon in formal prose.
  • However, the city was liberated no need for the "however"; nothing is being contradicted
    I have gone through and made various tweaks. I think my major problem was bogging down in trying to essentially provide a large list of actions that were fought. Hopefully, some of the changes I have made have been for the better!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mason Review, a Government white paper that outlined a new defence policy, was published during his tenure that's somewhat obvious from it being named after him, but the passive voice makes it sound like something that happened accidentally; you could distil this down and eliminate the passive voice with "he authored the Mason Review in 1975".
  • Most of the last two paragraphs from "The post-war and Cold War period" feels off-topic for the division article. I'd suggest distilling these down to the bits most relevant to the 2nd and putting that into one paragraph. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have boiled down those two paragraphs, which include a reword on the Mason Review, and incorporated some of that text into the section about the 2nd Armoured Division. In the spirit of the review, text was lost, but it is now more efficient?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review and comments. I have made various edits based off your notes, and attempted to address all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell:: A gentle reminder that I have attempted to address your concerns :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Many apologies. I'd forgotten to return to this. I'm satisfied that you've addressed my comments, so (pending TRM confirming that his prose/MoS concerns have been addressed) I support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • "al formations bearing the name 2nd Division were formed. Only two such formations..." lots of "form" here reads mildly repetitively to me.
    Some tweaks made hereEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "into Boer territory" could link Boers.
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, for non-experts, Guerrilla warfare could be linked.
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "division moved to Scotland" you said expressly where in England it was located, where in Scotland?
    Location in Scotland addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the article is about the 2nd Infantry Division but "division" is used 368 times in the article including 29 times in the Peninsular War section alone. I may be speaking out of turn but is there literally any other way of referencing the unit will remaining unambiguous without saying "division"?
    Tried to alternative things in the lead a little, but I am open to suggestions. Off the top of my head, early in the morning and with no a lot of sleep, one can only think of "it" and "formation" as viable alternatives.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Battle of Vittoria" our article calls is the Battle of Vitoria?
    I have switched this up. I am not sure why, but Oman and a lot of other English sources (though to present day) spell the town with two 't's. I have noted the same with some German related sources. I am not sure if this is a typo that 'stuck', an English "alternative" spelling, or if the town was renamed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on 1 July.[32] On 7 July" repetitive.
    Tweak madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Everard Wyrall, the" redlinked in the main body but not in the lead?
    Additional link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 28 July 1914, the First World War began. On 4 August" could merge, i.e. "On 28 July 1914, the First World War began, and a week later..."
    Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Nivelle Offensive" I think there's been a general agreement that "Offensive" is no longer capitalised in this kind of usage.
    Link piped to drop the capitalEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " of Amiens. So began" two mini-sentences again, I would once again recommend a merge.
    MergedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The strategic situation..." that caption is a fragment so no full stop.
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the "python" scheme" why was it called that?
    I have consulted several sources, and I have not seen any particular reason given for the name. As far as I am aware, it is not an abbreviation and is just a meaningless codename.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "strength.[193][192][197] " ref order.
    Ref ordered updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Territorial Army" link.
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 1981 Defence White Paper. It," this doesn't appear to be italicised in our own article, is it really considered a work or is it more of a pamphlet?
    I have dropped the italicsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "16–18,000 men" I know what you mean, but should this really be 16,000–18,000 men?
    I would of argued the former, but I have tweaked it per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "262ff.." one too many full stops.
    I have removed the full stop from inside the template, so that only one will now displayEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jan.-Sept" needs spaced en-dash, and not sure why some of the months are given here as abbreviations and other are not?
    En-dash added. The titles follow the layout used in each of the works. No idea why the earlier volumes abbreviate the latter do not.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1815-1914" en-dash.
  • "1854-1856" likewise.
  • "1901-1903" ditto.
    All of the above tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1976-7 " ditto (and sure that's not 77?)
    Tweaked, and yes it should have been "77" after a quick double checkingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "outlining the 2nd Division" and "First World War memorial" ... both need full stops.
    Periods addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review and comments. I have a bandaged-up hand, which is slowing my typing so it may be a little longer than usual to address these.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, and take your time. I hope your hand recovers soon! Feel free to ping me once you're done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man:: Thank you. I have gone through the article and tried to address your remaining concerns, or have left comments above for you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I'm happy with the updates you've made and have no further reason not to support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:23, 13 October 2021 (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/2nd_Infantry_Division_(United_Kingdom)/archive1&oldid=1050294731"