Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division/archive1

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) and Kges1901 (talk)

The 55th (West Lancashire) Division was originally formed in 1908, as part of the Territorial Force, and was active for nearly 40 years. It fought in many of the notable battles of the First World War's Western Front. During its time at the front, it was lauded for several accomplishments, but criticized for its perceived weakness during the fighting at Cambrai in 1917. Following the reformation of the Territorial Force, the division became part of the Territorial Army in 1920. The inter-war years were quiet, memorials were erected, and the division was transformed into a "Motor Division". During the Second World War, the division engaged in anti-invasion, draft-finding, and training duties and was not deployed. It was disbanded towards the end of the war, and also used for deception purposes. The article has been given a copy-edit by the GOCE, and recently passed a GA review. This is a joint nomination between myself, and Kges1901 (talk · contribs) who has helped expand the article in key ways.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

I just had a pretty detailed look at GAN, so have only a few things to add after another read:

link mobilisation for demobilised in the lead, and at first mention of mobilisation in the body

Linked, I've put in a more relevant link for demobbing. Kges1901 (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest links for North Lancashire, Liverpool and South Lancashire at first mention

Done

link Wales

Already linked

colon after "The infantry of the division comprised" then use semicolons to divide the brigades

Done

move note a to the sentence where the casualties for the tour are given

Done

suggest "In the right flanking 165th Brigade, the 1/5KR advanced..."

Rephrased, but slightly differently

Second lieutenant→Second Lieutenant

Done

suggest "The 165th Brigade's 1/9K was ordered..."

Rephrased to avoid contraction

suggest "The 1/4KORL and the 1/4LR of the 164th Brigade..."

Done

"until all ammunition was exhausted" did they then surrender? Or what happened next?

Added detail from VC citation

for gegenangriff use the lang-de template

Done

Down to Battle of Cambrai. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps make it clearer that the initial attack at Cambrai was made by the 164th Brigade, with 1/4LR attacking Gillemont Farm and the Liverpool Irish and 2/5LF attacking the Knoll?
I have made a few tweaks, hope this works.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The 166th Brigade, held in reserve" but that brigade was in the frontline. Is this perhaps the 164th Brigade, which had borne the brunt of the earlier fighting? The later mention of a lack of defence in depth makes me wonder where the 164th Brigade was.
Rechecking the source: 166th Brigade (as you state, on the frontline) were ordered to dig in and deny the village, and were reinforced with at least a battalion from the 164th. I have tweaked the article, hope this makes it more clear now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"By 1918, the number of front line infantry within the British Army in France had decreased" why had it decreased? Was it lack of conscripts or something else?

Elaborated from Perry using google books preview. @EnigmaMcmxc: Can you verify that this is an accurate conclusion?

I have made a change per Perry, to state just eligible replacements. His is a prolonged argument on the situation, which includes the post-war attempt to use the situation for political gain and conflicting stats among official sources and the post-war political arguments. Boiled down, there was heavy casualties that decreased the frontline fighting strength (but not the overall strength of the BEF), and of the large amount of boys at home there was a shortage of men actually physically able (and of the correct age) to be drafted (the rest appear to be in training, under or over age, or assigned to an emergency pool of men in case of invasion).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link 2-inch medium mortar for medium trench mortar, and 9.45-inch Heavy Mortar for heavy trench mortar

Done

"attacked by elements of three German divisions" but weren't there four?

Indeed, Farr's statement applies only to the first day.

Down to Interwar period. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link St Helens, Merseyside

Already linked

"By the 1930s, this resulted in the TA having limited access to modern equipment, under-trained men, and officers with inadequate experience in command."

Done

when the div went motor, was the 164th Bde disestablished or moved to another division?

Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comma between Home Forces and General Walter Kirke, and also after Kirke

Done, though it needs a 'the' before C-in-C Home Forces

"and ~~the~~ The Wash"

Done

"organised No. 4 Independent Company,"

Done

drop the quotes from "insufficiently trained" and "undertake offensive operations", just not necessary

Done

I think "The division continued to provide men to other formations through to 1944" could be moved to the end of the para

Addressed and removed the 'to', EnigmaMcmxc, can you verify that this is correct?

The full quote from the source:

"At the same time [would appear to be around October 1941] the Division was called on for drafts both of men and units and was reduced to a Lower Establishment Division. The hopes of overseas service receded, and the calls for drafts started, which were to continue until "D"-Day."

I think the placement at the end of the para I okay, as we have previously established this was an ongoing process. Do either of you suggest further refinement based off the full quote?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In June, the division lost five men" killed?
Per the source, yes. Updated article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"previously 10th Battalion" of the Loyal Regiment?

Done

"renumbered the 166th Brigade"

Done

perhaps say something about the success of Fortitude North
I have added a brief sentence on it, and a note containing a bit more information.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think between myself and Kges1901, we have addressed all your points and concerns. Several comments have been left above for you to review as well. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have. Great job with this, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Enigma & Kges, thanks for your work on this. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in the infobox the Branch assignment to the Territorial Force is listed as beginning in 1907, but this seems counterinuitive given that the Active field provides 1908 as the year the division was established

Done

Coop stated it was believed that the German's --> remove the apostrophe here

Done

During January, the 55th --> probably best to add the year here

Done

Army of Occupation, to maintain a receiving camp for Army of Occupation cadres --> probably don't need the second mention of the Army of Occupation here

Done

"reorganization" or "reorganisation"?

Done

"motorized" or "motorised"?

Done

"demobilization" -> "demobilisation"

Done. I apparently can't instinctively write in British English, good catch. Kges1901 (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the 1930s, this had the result of the TA having limited access to modern equipment, the men being under-trained and the officers having inadequate experience in command --> "By the 1930s, the TA lacked modern equipment, its men were under-trained and the officers were inadequately experienced in command"?

I think PM's rephrasing works better

No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

divisions of the British Army were divided between being listed as higher establishment formations, and lower establishment ones --> "divisions of the British Army were organised as either higher establishment or lower establishment formations"?

Done, but without the first use of 'establishment' as I think that's redundant

"Battle Insignia" --> "Battle insignia"?

Done

in the Citations "p. 56–57" --> "pp. 56-57"

Done

in the References Becke 1989a and 1989b seem to have same name -- should one of these be Part 2B?

Done

G'day, as this has been sitting here awhile, I thought I'd take another look through, to help out a bit further. I have a few more suggestions (although my support above stands): AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, which were sent overseas as parts of other formations --> "which were sent overseas to join other formations"
tweaked
Liverpool is overlinked in the Formation section
Dup link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Langlois wrote "The manoeuvres --> probably could decaps "The" here (there are a few other examples of this throughout the article
decapped, and took a look through the article for the others and I believe I got them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
are there any images that might be relevant to the Formation or Early First World War section?

Found an image relevant to prewar TF camps. Kges1901 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At 09:00, three German divisions–the 4th Ersatz, 43rd Reserve, and 18th Reserve–launched --> unspaced emdashes or spaced endashes
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At 05:40 on 20 September, the attack, known as the Battle of the Menin Road Ridge began --> suggest adding a comma after "Ridge"
comma addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Afterwards, he was first into the German trenches, killed a sentry, assisted in attacks on German dugouts, was last to leave, ensuring his men had got away, and was then killed: suggest splitting this sentence
I split it, hopefully with what you intendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On his own initiative, and under German rifle fire, Procter went out into no man's land, dressed the wounds of the two men, provided them with clothing, promised them rescue after dark, and returned to his trench. --> "On his own initiative, and under German rifle fire, Procter went out into no man's land. After dressing the wounds of the two men, and providing them with clothing, he promised them rescue after dark and returned to his trench."
amended per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
he was himself wounded while carried a wounded --> "he was himself wounded while carrying a wounded"?
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At 04:15 9 April, the German bombardment --> "At 04:15 on 9 April"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
McCartney wrote "This scale.. --> "McCartney wrote "this scale..."
AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The use of infiltration tactics by the Germans were also --> "was also"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
9th Battalion, King's Regiment (Liverpool), of 164th Brigade --> "of the 164th Brigade"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Julius' was the codeword to bring troops to a state of readiness within eight hours. The codeword 'Caesar' meant...: probably double quotes per the MOS
As in the 66th article, I have dropped the single quote instead. If you think it would be better with the double quote, let me know.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
favor --> "favour" (British English variation)
tweaked
transfered --> transferred (as above)
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
caliber --> "calibre" (as above)
tweaked, and verified this is the spelling Coop used. Funny enough, when fixing this and hitting space it immediately got auto-corrected to the US spelling, which I think is how this got missed in the first place.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
that German troops levels --> "that German troop levels"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The division's actual and notional moves were leaked by double agents --> deliberately leaked
amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"File:55 inf div -vector2.svg": probably needs an indicative date for the design on the Commons description page
I have updated the file on the Commons per the IWM, update seems to be from around 1940.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the time format is a little inconsistent. For instance compare "3:50 am" and then later "08:00" and "13:00" etc
I believe I got the odd ones out, so they should all use a consistentEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC) standard now.[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

I'll do this one in the weekend or Monday. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Just a polite reminder. Kges1901 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deception effort that supported the invasion of France Try to make clear which invasion because the Battle of France was, in theory, an invasion as well.

Done

In 1901, following lessons learned from the Second Boer War American learned.

Done

Link Territorial Force in the body.
Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Major-General is overlinked.
Dup link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unlink France because of common term.
DelinkedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
During the day, Royal Army Medical Corps Captain Noel Godfrey Chavasse Is it possible to reform the sentence to avoid sea of blue here?
I have made a change, does this work?
fought their way into five German 77 mm gun batteries No English units?
Not sure what you meant by English units, so have added in the convert template so we have mm and inches.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The division had been pushed back 2,000 yards (1.1 mi) No metric units?
I have updated the template to show miles and km.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Link Lance-Corporal.
Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the end of 4 October, over 5 miles (8.0 kilometres) had been covered Round the nought here.
RoundedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the 55th was reviewed by Albert I of Belgium and sent representatives As a Belgian I know he was a king but probably most readers wouldn't know he was a king.

Done

See American "practiceds"
UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Langlois described the divisional artillery as having "acquitted itself creditably" but having Shan't it be "has" instead of "having"?
I have tweaked the sentence, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
he promised them rescue after dark and returned to his trench --> "he promised them to rescue after dark and returned to his trench"
I dont believe this would work. However, to try and make the sentence more clear, I have made a tweak. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
advancing over the German first line trench and rapidly First line needs a hyphen.
AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
a smoke screen was deployed on the flank of the 2/5LF Merge smoke screen.
DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
aimed to deliver a single, decisive, war winning blow War winning needs a hyphen.
Added
With these gains, the divisional main line Merge main line.
MergedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you for your review. Between Kges1901 and myself, I believe we have actioned all your comments. I have left a few of my own above too.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Consider adding alt text throughout.
I feel like I really suck at alt-text, but I have gone ahead and added it throughout.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"File:4th Battalion King's Own Royal Lancasters detraining at Trefnant, 1909.jpg" 1. Requires a US PD tag 2. The "UK unknown" tag used requires the tagger to "specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was"; this information is not there.

Done

The two images in "First trench tour" create an MOS:SANDWICH.
Likewise the two photographs in "Battle of Passchendaele".
And the two in "Early 1918".
And the two maps in "Defence of Givenchy".
And the photographs in "Advance into Belgium".
And in "Epilogue".
I have removed on image, and moved the rest around to hopefully address this (although the first one is now chronologically in the wrong section, but I don't think that really matters too much).

That all looks good except for "Defence of Givenchy". Even with my image preferences set to medium there are two sandwiches. I think that you need to lose another image. (I assume the last photograph.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing an image is a cure worse than the problem. It reads fine for me on my computer. Kges1901 (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am not sure that the 'soldiers marching' image adds a lot, or isn't so generic that it couldn't be moved elsewhere, but that's your call. I have just checked on four devices and six screens and think that I see your point. (I had my image preferences set to 800 x 600 px - the middle one of the five choices.) No problem on an iPhone or iPad. Differing degrees of sandwiching on my laptop and PC screens. The big issue is the squeeze between the maps; if you could do something about that I could probably be Nelsonian about the other one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the majority of the text was removed from the caption, perhaps moved to the alt text, the image box would not extend down as far. Would this perhaps provide a compromise to both sides?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Good thought. Anything which removes the sandwich is good by me. I have just made a couple of changes which do this, but they are merely suggestions. Revert them and try something else at will. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captions

I have done some copy editing which you will want to check.

"A raiding party of the Liverpool Irish on the morning after the first large trench raid of the division" Perhaps "of the division" → 'by the division'?
"Division positions in the Guillemont sector" Either 'Divisional' or 'The division's'.
I have gone ahead and edited these two.

Gog the Mild (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, I have attempted to action everything that my colleague did not.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Citations consistently formatted.
Add a space in Bell's initials

Done

Capitalize "against" in Bond to be consistent

Done

Not sure if there's any real utility to linking the publishers
RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason you're making things harder to read for vision-impaired readers by using refbegin and end?

With such a long bibliography, it makes sense to condense the size

It would seem it use to be standard, and now there is a push back against it. MOS/Layout doesn't argue for or against it. MOS/Accessibility does suggest small fonts should be avoided. I likewise note a rather terse debate about the subject at the village pump, but nothing seemed to have came from it. The ongoing back and forth on this issue, this article aside, seems to suggest that this needs to be fully debated and added to the MOS. With that said, my colleague Kges1901 has objected above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting issue is not a hill to die on for me, so I've removed the refbegin and refend. Kges1901 (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, but I was merely waiting for Enigma to return to respond.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker and Roberts have a state abbreviation, but no other reference has one. I'd suggest either expanding it for readers unfamiliar with US state abbreviations or getting rid of it for consistency

Removed for consistency

Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, and the comment. Kges1901 has addressed the majority, and I have taken care of another. It seems the final item is a bit of a stalemate: you are in favor of refbegin being removed and Kges1901 is in favor of it staying.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominee comment[edit]

@Kges1901:, @Gog the Mild:, and @Sturmvogel 66:: Just a heads up, I will not be available to further assist in this review until next week.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2019 (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.