Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/61st 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 Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

61st Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

61st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 61st Division was a 2nd-Line TA division raised at the start of the Second World War. While it did not deploy overseas, it did undertake several varied and interesting roles within the UK. The article passed its GA review back in 2016. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria, and look forward to further refining the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:61_inf_div_-vector.svg is too simple to qualify for copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria:: To clarify, are we talking about the permission or licensing section? Or both? Cheers EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory both, but the latter would be more important since the former is PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay then, I have removed the licensing section and left the UK-PD part alone.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay - you might consider instead replacing the former Licensing section tag with {{PD-ineligible}} or similar, to make things explicit. Not a big deal though. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Further amended, per your comments Nikkimaria :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

  • Copyedited as usual so let me know any concerns; outstanding points:
    CE looks good, thanks Ian.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice you use "ize" instead of "ise", which is fine by me because I understand it's actually a myth that British spelling requires "ise", but make sure you're consistent and be prepared for people to tell you you should use "ise"... ;-)
      Ha! This is what happens when a Brit goes and lives in the US; the "ise" slowly becomes "ize"s :P As you say, there may be future arguments of one variation over the other; so now they are all "ise"s :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the ongoing efforts and some regiments being able to recruit the required numbers to form new battalions, the whole process had – in the words of historian James P. Levy – "not progressed beyond the paper stage when [the Second World War] began in September." By the outbreak of the war, the division was active... -- these two sentences seem to clash, one implying things were only at paper stage by the start of war, and the next stating the division was active by then.
      Totally overlooked this conflict. I have reworded based off what both Perry and Levy have to say. Do these changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with your rewording, and will look to implement that in other articles on the same subject.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox:
    • I don't think flag icons and the link to the UK are necessary, but I won't press the point if you're keen on them.
      Yes, I would prefer to keep them :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess for consistency you could add a few more notable commanders, since more than one appear to have WP articles.
      Having read through the profiles for the other guys, I feel that "notable" would really fall to one of them. I have included Schreiber, although if you think additional ones are required I shall take another look.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure and depth of coverage seem fair.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read.
  • When I get time I'll see about conducting a source review...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Ian for your copyedit and review. I have attempted to address all of your concerns above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Tks, I re-worded a bit but am about ready to support. My only concern is "Historian" instead of "historian", which I know was suggested below -- my understanding is that we mean an occupation, not a title, so the cap looks odd. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Have addressed per your recommendation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian Rose: G'day, Ian, I think this review is almost ready to be closed. Would you mind taking a look and advising if your concerns have been addressed? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, thought I'd already supported... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AustralianRupert: G'day, looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "to lead to further peaceful resolution of issues" --> "to lead to the peaceful resolution of further issues"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "relations between both countries soon deteriorated" --> "relations between both countries continued to deteriorate"?
    Seems more accurate, amended.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest wikilinking cadre
    LinkedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • capitalisation inconsistency: "Second Line" and "second line" (I'd probably just go with the latter myself, but its not a warstoper for me)
    Amended, per the discussion from the A-Class review on the 18th DivEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent: "Carton de Wiart" v. "Carton De Wiart"
    FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the months following the exercise, the division was relegated to 'Lower Establishment' status": do we know why?
    I have not been able to establish the reasoning. The sparse sources that mention the division, just mention that it happened without reason why. The IWM merely states the division was stood down to become a training and drafting unit.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 48th (South Midland) Division is overlinked, as is 72nd Brigade (United Kingdom)
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to 'Lower Establishment' status...", "...'Higher Establishment' infantry...", "...and based in 'residue' camps..." and "...fake Fourth Army, and 'travelled'...": I think the MOS prefers double quote marks here
    On review, I don't think they are needed around most of those terms and thus I have removed them. In regards to the travelled part, I have amended per your recommendation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "July 1942-May 1944": should be an endash here
    Fixed, I think!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "9th Battalion Worcestershire Regiment - 1939 to 1945": should be an endash here
    LikewiseEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, "Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationer" --> "The Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery"?
    FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, "publisher=The Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery Ottawa" --> "publisher=The Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery |location=Ottawa"?
    FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, thank you for reviews and suggestions AustralianRupert. I have once more attempted to address the points you have raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5:

  • Delete the ] next to the Second World War. (looks like this "Second World War]")
    FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use capital letter for Historian "Jack Adams" same with Paul McMahon.
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • May i ask you why the link of the U.S. V Corps in this line "Atlantic, saw U.S. V Corps (U.S. 1st Armored Division, the 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division, and the British 72nd Infantry Brigade)" goes to the "V Corps (United Kingdom)"? Only one unit is American the other two are British please fix this.
    Double checked the source, it should be linking to US V Corps and I have fixed this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See two reorganised's one called "re-organised" and other one just "reorganised".
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link the unit "10th Battalion" from the Worcestershire Regiment. same type as the "4th Battalion" from the Northamptonshire Regiment.
    As far as I can tell, there are no separate articles or lists about battalions etc for the Worcestershire Regiment as there is for the Northamptonshire.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, however if you see the link of the "4th Battalion" from the Northamptonshire Regiment is linked to the main page of "Northamptonshire Regiment". Can you do the same to the "10th Battalion" from the Worcestershire Regiment to the main page of "Worcestershire Regiment". (Sorry if i did confused you.) CPA-5 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Still confused somewhat. The 4th Battalion link goes to 5th (Huntingdonshire) Battalion, Northamptonshire Regiment, not the Northamptonshire Regiment article. Are you requesting the following: 10th Battalion, Worcestershire Regiment?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes (Sorry again for confusing you) CPA-5 (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo "MaMahon" --> McMahon
    Typo fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If i see some more issues then i put them here, good luck with the page it looks good. CPA-5 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for the review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I hope it will get an A-class good luck further on. CPA-5 (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Hawkeye7

  • "For some TA divisions, little progress had been made by the time the Second World War began; for others, they were able to do so within a matter of weeks." Which category did the 61st Division fall into?
    I have been unable to find a source that states when the division actually formed. All sources seem to parrot Joslen; the division was active by the time the war rolled around. Any suggestions on how to better bridge the sentence in question with the latter one stating the division was active?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 15 April, Carton de Wiart, as well as the divisional staff, were deployed to Norway, and Major-General Edmond Schreiber assumed command of the division." With a new HQ staff? And what happened to him after Carton de Wiart returned? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Joslen, when Schreiber took command he did so with a new staff. Joslen does not state if they remained following the return of the others from Norway. I have also added in a little info on what happened to Schreiber.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: G'day, Hawkeye, this review looks like it is close to wrapping up. Could you please take a look and advise if your comments have been addressed? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel66[edit]

Just a quick drive-by for the nonce.

  • No DABs, external links OK.
  • No overlinking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some missing hyphens for compound adjectives: better quality, second line first line
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exercise Spartan, the largest military exercise ever held in the United Kingdom. Superlative. Is this covered by the citation to French several sentences later?
    Yes, per p. 209: "... It was the largest exercise ever held in Britain. ..." Is rewording required?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but I'd move a copy of that cite to immediately follow the superlative.
      Done :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • with 45th Infantry Division with "the"
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of GOCs is redundant to the main body.
    I see your point, but such lists seem to have become a common feature of these kinds of articles; a quick reference guide if you will.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It becomes a bit of a problem with long-established units where the length of the list can nearly equal the length of the main body. I'd prefer to get rid of them if the notable commanders are covered in the main body, but it's not a requirement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I have removed it, and will follow suite on some other articles where all commanders are mentioned.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review and compliment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Sort order question: does McMahon go before Mansergh? I'm seriously asking because the von This and McThat and de TheOther often confuse me. All else looks nice in notes & refs. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Googling it, I found several college/uni websites that state not to treat Mc as short for Mac; I have reordered the list. I don't recall doing this on purpose, but it did result in an interesting few articles on the subject and finding the absolute wealth of confusion out near on it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • O'Halpin, Eunan (2006). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
    Added missing page numbersEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mansergh, Nicholas (1968). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2018 (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/61st_Infantry_Division_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=827543217"