Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/1st Airlanding Brigade (United Kingdom)

1st Airlanding Brigade (United Kingdom)[edit]

A short lived British airborne formation, that was only involved in two operations which would not be understated to be call them disasters. Thanks to User:Philg88 of the GOCE for a copy edit any suggestions to improve the article welcome. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

Yet more great work Jim - it's great to see such high quality articles on British airborne units. My suggestions for how this could be further improved are:

While the article is generally well written, it would benefit from a copyedit (watch out for missing commas and surplus possessive apostrophes)
"During the second operation, during fighting around Arnhem" - 'during' is repeated
" only around 20 per cent of the troops remained, the rest having either been killed or listed as missing" given that the fate of the men who were originally listed as missing has long been known (they were either taken prisoner, killed or escaped) there's no need to refer to this in the lead and then later in the body of the article (I presume that POWs made up most of the missing?)
"an aircraft capable of transporting eight airborne soldiers that would be used for both assault and training purposes" - should 'that would be used' be 'was'?
Were men who were in the 31st Independent Infantry Brigade Group who didn't want to be in an airborne formation able to transfer out?
All-caps unit names such as 'STAFFORDS' and 'BORDERS' aren't generally used outside the military - these should be in lower case
"left to form the 6th Airlanding Brigade prior to Operation Ladbroke" - what Operation Ladbroke is hasn't been mentioned to this point in the article
A bit of background to the brigade's participation in the invasion of Sicily would be helpful before the para about it moving from England
Did the 1st Airlanding Brigade suffer more casualties than any other brigade rather than any other 'unit' during the invasion of Sicily? Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review all changed, Tugwell actually says for the British so far so added that in. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Burton[edit]

Could this sentence be rephrased "When withdrawn, only around 20 per cent of the troops remained, the rest having either been killed or were missing or became prisoners of war."? It doesn't really flow.
Is there a source for the information in File:Arnhem Map 1.jpg?

P. S. Burton (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded - I presume you mean the locations of the landing grounds etc, its never come up before the map itself is from the Battle of Arnhem article, but if challenged there area plenty of books with the same image in print.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nthep[edit]

Jim, another great looking article. I've just one point to raise and that is regarding unit names in the section on Brigade composition. I have no concerns over 7KOSB being titled the 7th (Galloway) Battalion King's Own Scottish Borderers as Galloway was part of the unit title when it was raised in 1939 but I am concerned over the use of Airborne in the other unit titles. I agree and accept that functionally it is correct and may well be how they were refered to in contemporary documents to ensure it was clear that these were specialised troops and not line infantry, but I'm not sure if it was ever the official designation of these units? Using the Galloway example, 2nd South Staffs would be the 2nd (Staffordshire Volunteers) South Staffordshire Regiment and 1st Borders would be the 1st (Cumberland) Border Regiment. Happy to be proved wrong though. NtheP (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is written both ways, admittedly without the airborne is more popular. I will amend the article.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo[edit]

I mostly do citations, sources, etc.

Possible PRIMARY: Blockwell, Albert; Clifton, Maggie (2005). ? Was this a co-authored biography?
"Arnhem — Jumping the Rhine 1944 and 1945." and other sources —mdashes don't take spaces. They are—used like so. Are you sure it isn't a subtitle and therefore a colon?
"Ferguson, Gregory (1984). The Paras 1940–84, Volume 1 of Elite series." Are you sure the title is "The Paras 1940–84, Volume 1 of Elite series" and not The Paras 1940-84 Elite Series 1. See "Pegasus Bridge — Benouville, D-Day 1944. Raid Series." for where you handle books in series correctly!
Publisher location: Harclerode, Peter (2005).
"Oxford, England" surely Oxford, United Kingdom? similarly "Barnsley, England"
Funny n dash? Probable subtitle The Second World War 1939–1945 Army – Airborne Forces
Publisher location: Smith, Claude (1992).
"p.21" but yet "pp. 28–29" Space consistency between the p. and the actual number
The OOB site is frustrating to cite given the anonymous status of its author. I'm willing to give this SPS expertise, but you may find difficulties if you go to FAC.
"Shortt & McBride" but yet "Blockwell and Clifton" in notes
""Bower, Sir Roger Herbert (1903–1990), Lieutenant General"" is held at a particular archive at KCL
Pegasus archive has an author. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Blockwell, Albert; Clifton, Maggie (2005) is a co-authored biography

OOB has been accepted in the past but can see your concerns

Bower archive added

I am unable to locate the author listed for Pegasus archive ?

Thanks for the review Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The front page for the Pegasus archive gives a Mark Hickman as the site owner/editor. NtheP (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger Steve[edit]

I mostly do Arnhem :-)

As with the 4th Parachute Brigade, a bit of confusion over the Staffords' actions on Day 1 and Day 2. The first lift's contingent (about 60% of the battalion) were despatched to Arnhem at 10am on Day 2 (Middlebrook, 187-188), and didn't arrive until much later in the evening. Overnight they were joined by the remaining 40%. The battalion didn't become engaged until 5am-ish on Day 3 (Middlebrook 200). At present the article makes it look like they became engaged on Day 1.
I'm not aware that Cain was injured by machine gun fire, but he was temporarily blinded by tank blasts.
I haven't heard anywhere that Baskeyfield was shot in the head. I believe it was a tank round that killed him.
Although attached to 4th Parachute Brigade, the KOSB's were still following their original plan on Day 2/3, which was to secure LZ L for the Polish landings. This isn't very clear in the article, which suggests that the whole Brigade were doing so. By then the Staffs were in Arnhem, and the Borders were west of Oosterbeek.
XXX Corps artillery began defending the Cauldron from Day 5 (I think), at present it looks like it only began on Day 8.
Barlow was killed by Mortar fire outside Arnhem (Middlebrook 211). His death was witnessed, so its a little inaccurate to state that he was never heard of again.

Really good work Jim, it's nice to see these articles expanding so well. Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review

First part changed to clarify Staffords movements
I got Cain was wounded by MG fire from the VC citation
Baskyfield changed details
Clarified KOSB still had to defend LZL
Added details about Barlow - Urquhart claims he was never seen again just his cigarette case found.

Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

I skimmed it and couldn't find anything to fix. Most Americans won't understand how "Brigade were sent ... brigade was disbanded" can be right, but it's right, and I can't complain. If someone at FAC asks you to change it, change "were sent" to "went". - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will keep that in mind. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you should stand your ground if this comes up at FAC—with brigade being a collective noun, "brigade were" is standard British English usage, so you should point the hypothetical reviewer to WP:ENGVAR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness[edit]

Consider rewording "Men in the battalions who were unsuitable for airborne service were weeded out to be replaced by volunteers." to "Men in the battalions who were unsuitable for airborne service were weeded out and replaced by volunteers." If the weeding actually took place (which your original wording clearly implies) it should be and. To be makes it sound like a future projection that may not have come to pass. If that was the case, then you could rework the sentence to "were to be weeded out and replaced...".
This sentence is also awkward: "After landing nearby, 1st Airlanding Brigade occupied the Norwegian capital, Oslo where Brigadier Bower became Commander, Oslo area for the duration of the division's time in Norway." You might want to put a comma after the first instance of Oslo and (if it's proper) change the later occurrence to "Commander, Oslo Area" to make it more distinct.

Good article otherwise.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]