Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/66th 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 Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A short article for a short-lived division. The 66th was formed in 1939, and disbanded the following year the 'victim' of post-Battle of France reforms that saw the motor division concept get scrapped. It has been given the once over by the GOCE, and has just passed its GAN.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I just did the GAN, and tend to give things a pretty detailed look there. I reckon it meets the A-Class criteria. I'm sure fresh eyes will pick up some things, but nothing is jumping out at me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • There are only two minor problems that I see here. 1) Four citations in a row for the second note. Is it possible to move these closer to the content they support? 2) In some cases, page ranges are wider than ideal, e.g. Fraser 1999, pp. 72–77. Try to keep page ranges to two pages or less for improved verifiability, especially since in this case it's only supporting a single, short sentence. Sources all appear to be reliable for what they're being used for. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 10:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 1) On reviewing the material used, it looks like Allport could be dropped as surplus to requirement. If it was just three inline citations, would that more appropriate? I ask, as otherwise, it would look something like this:
The TA was a reserve ... during the First World War).[1][2][3] First line … would also be created.[1] All TA recruits … volunteered for overseas service.)[1][2][3]
Re: 2) The inline cite from Joslen verifies that the division never left the UK. The inline cite from Fraser essentially provides the context to why: the Battle of France, the decision to not commit any more forces, and the withdrawal. Just re-glancing over the pages, there isn't much of a way to cut it down to one or two pages. In this case, would you suggest finding a different source that summarizes the event to same context?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) Three inline citations would be fine. Re 2) I would prefer that solution. It's difficult and time-consuming enough to source-verify information from single pages. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 08:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made edits based off this discussion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c French 2001, p. 53.
  2. ^ a b Simkins 2007, pp. 43–46.
  3. ^ a b Perry 1988, pp. 41–42.

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, not a lot stood out to me. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This goal was a lofty goal for the division--> "This was a lofty goal for the division"
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • whose members had to volunteer for overseas service --> "who could not be deployed unless they volunteered for overseas service"?
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • exploited by the Mobile division... --> "mobile division"
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Julius' was the codeword to bring troops to a state of readiness within eight hours. The codeword 'Caesar' meant --> I think the MOS usually prefers double quotation marks
    I just dropped them instead, I hope this works.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there an image that might be appropriate for the History section?
    I have scoured the IWM, no photos related to the division in any way. I couldn't even find a decent photo of some non-descript soldiers standing around looking like they were guarding something.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, thanks for looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • given that it was such a short-lived formation, coverage seems adequate to me (no action required)
  • "File:66 inf div.svg": probably needs an indicative date on the Commons description page, stating when it was originally designed/worn
    I have updated the file with dates, description, sources etc.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • between the fall of 1939 and the summer of 1940 during the Second World War Replace seasons here with months.
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • remain in the United Kingdom to complete training and preparation, before being deployed to France Unlink both France and the UK because of common terms.
    Links removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the "History" section needs to be split in subsections because its too long.
    I have gone ahead and split it into two sectionsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First World War is overlinked.
    Removed duplicate linksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe we need citations in the infobox. Normally all the information with their citations should be included in the body and IMO all the citations in the lead and infobox are unnecessary because they should be mentioned in the body already.
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, I believe I have actioned everything you have highlighted.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I'm really enjoying this series on second line British divisions. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "Instead, the division spent the majority of the time assigned to guarding vulnerable points in the United Kingdom and was briefly assigned to the initial plan to defend the country against a German invasion" - this is a bit breathless, and "the time" is unclear
    I have made a couple of tweaks here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This included the abandonment of the "motor division" concept" - it hasn't previously been stated in the lead that this was a motor division
    I have trimmed that part of the lede; the division was not a motor division, and it seemed the extra detail sidetracked from the point being made.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Formation and home defence' section doesn't describe this unit's organisation and role as a motor division. Was the role different to that of a standard division?
    Per above, I introduced (and hopefully, rectified) this confusion. The division was a regular infantry division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " As soon as the Allied troops returned from France" - not sure about this. The French troops evacuated to the UK weren't returning there given that they weren't from the UK. I guess the Canadian 1st Division returned to the UK, but this is a bit micro. I'd suggest tweaking this to " As soon as the British troops returned from France" or similar.
    Tweaked per your commentEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the problem with the motor division concept which led to its abandonment?
  • The two last sentences of the para beginning with "As a result of the Battle of France " start with "This"
    I made a change, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Defence of the United Kingdom is online at Hyperwar [1]. Map 5 (available here looks useful. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. I'd suggest including the map noted in the final comment though, given that the article doesn't include any images. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

The sole image is appropriately licenced. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:54, 5 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/66th_Infantry_Division_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=929402329"