Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/6th Armoured Division (South Africa)

6th Armoured Division (South Africa)

I have taken this article from what was essentially a stub to a more sizeable document. I think it now covers the Division's actions, problems and key dates. Peer review inputs by 1944-1945 Italian Campaign specialists would be much appreciated. There are very few SA Military articles in A-Class status and I think this one can progress in that direction (currently Start Class). Farawayman (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Buckhot06

This is a really good piece, detailed and with orbats at various times. Two thoughts;

• cut down on the number of subheadings, as it makes the contents very long, Corrected, but I did not reduce sub-headings, but forced the Table of Contents to report to Level 2 only. Farawayman (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• double-check the Category:Infantry regiments of South Africa. I believe we have an article on the Cape Town Highlanders, for example. Corrected - I have added links to all battalions within the OOB.
• I didn't check whether you've done an academic library/professional military history search of the literature on the South African in Italy for further reading/eventual expansion by anyone, but that might be an idea if not done already. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies Farawayman; extremely good sourcehunting.

YellowMonkey

• A lot of abbreviations are just thrown in without being spelt out first. Corrected (Hope I spotted all of them!). Farawayman (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Number ranges in the references need date ranges hyphens, silly me Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC) `

-> YellowMonkey, I didn't understand this one! Please give some more guidance on what is required. Thanks! Farawayman (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Farawayman (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Notes and References" and other headers; --> "Notes and references" due to not being a proper noun Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

I found this a very interesting article and most of my comments are just minor style points that might help for an ACR (many of them are nitpicks, but hopefully they will help):

• prior to going for an A class review or a GAN I'd suggest having someone take a look through the article and give it a copy edit. I didn't find anything glaring, but it can't hurt; Agree. Requested User: Stephen Kirrage to do a copy edit. Refer his comments below. Farawayman (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• if you are going to use abbreviations, you need to introduce them first; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• in the Crossing the Albert Line section, "...By the 28th June" (you are using an ordinal suffix for the date, however, this should not be done per Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Dates, thus it should just be "By 28 June..." Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• date/year ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH, e.g. "1 February 1943 - 2 May 1945" should be "1 February 1943 – 2 May 1945"; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think that the lead needs to be expanded a bit for GA or A class; Done. Farawayman (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• the table in the Command and Organisation section appears to have a duplicate title "Higher formations served under" - is this necessary? Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• "1st US Division's Combat command 'A'" - is this the proper name of a unit? If so, it should be fully capitalised as "1st US Division's Combat Command 'A'"; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• some paragraphs end with sentences that are not cited, for instance the last paragraph in the Spring Offensive section: "The Division now advanced towards the Po River Valley." These should have citations added so that it can fulfill the referencing criterion; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• use of the word "now" I think creates a tense issue. It is in the past so I think that usually using "then" is clearer, e.g. in this sentence: "The Division now advanced towards the Po River Valley." - it might be clearer if it were worded "The Division then advanced towards the Po River Valley." Corrected, thanks largely to copy edit by Stephen Kirrage. Farawayman (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• watch the capitalisation of some of your headings, if they are not proper nouns only the first word should be capitalised, e.g. "Italian Surrender" should be "Italian surrender"; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• the Advisor script reports a possible ISBN error for the Orpen work in the Bibliography. Can you check to see that this is the correct number, please? -> The ISBN 036000282X is correct, as printed in my copy of the book. It can also be cross-referenced here Farawayman (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• per the example included at WP:LAYOUT I think that the See also section should be above the Notes section. Corrected.Farawayman (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Citation # 29 to the 28th (Maori) Battalion website would be better formated with the {{cite web}} template so that the inline citation links directly to the website as per the way you formatted Citation # 70; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Citation # 52 ("This day in the war in Europe") should have publisher and access date information added to it; This citation was not on par with the others in the article - I have replaced it with a reputable reference. See Citation #52. Farawayman (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• the titles in the Bibliography should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• you might want to add an OCLC number for the Klein 1946 work (sometimes comes up at ACR) - this is in lieu of an ISBN - these can be found by searching World cat; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• is there an ISBN for the Beyers work? Added. Farawayman (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirrages

You asked me to do a read through for copy edit and I'll be happy to do that.If anything comes up that needs clarification I'll add it below as I go:

Thanks for all you have done so far. BZ! Farawayman (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good Copy Edit - thanks! Farawayman (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

1. "Training began in a desert camp close to Khataba". It would help to explain where this is. Is it the one in Afghanistan? I believe III Corps was part of Persia and Iraq Command at the time....Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 13:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Khataba (also known as El Khataba) 70 km NW of Cairo. See Khataba (scroll down for map). I have clarified the text to prevent confusion with other Khataba's. Farawayman (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

2.Mention of 11th Canadian Infantry Brigade near Isernia. As far as I'm aware only Brigade #s 1-3 were in Italy (+an armoured brigade). Could you check your source please? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 13:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I checked the original reference - it refers to 11th Inf Bde (Can). I also checked Jackson Vol VI Part II p. 225. 11th Inf Bde is listed in the 8th Army OOB as being part of I Canadian Corps at the time of the Gothic Line battles. So I think its correct. Jackson also makes frequent reference to the Perth Regiment and the Cape Breton Highlanders, who were both 11th Inf Bde battalions. Farawayman (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I had got my timeline wrong. By this time the Can. 5th Armd Div were on the scene and 1th Inf Bde were part of it. Soree! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

3."By 25 October, the rains had turned to floods, isolating the Division's elements on Hill 501 and suspending all air support from the US 12th Air Force." US 12th Air Force ceased to exist as an operational entity when Mediterranean Allied Air Command was formed in 1943 (see here). Jackson says (p. 235 note at bottom of the page) that US XXII Tactical Air Command was responsible for supporting 5th Army by this time. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, you are 100% correct. The cited page does not make reference to which air force it was. I typed 12th USAF as an assumption! Jackson reference is clear. Corrected to US XXII Tac Air Cmd.Farawayman (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

4.Since the brigade commanders are named in the OOB, may I suggest that the Divisional artillery commander also be named (since he would also have been a brigadier). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC) One hour of research later, and its been corrected :) He was a Col! Farawayman (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. CRA in a British Division would have been a brigadier so I thought that for logical parity all brigadiers should be named. Still, since you've made the effort to find him, he might as well stay in the table even if as a colonel. Actually during WWII I have yet to find a British officer who held the substantive rank of brigadier. As far as I can see, it was always a temporary rank held by an officer of lower substantive rank appointed to a brigadier's job (Brigade cmdr, CRA, BGS etc.). It now raises the question as to whether one should seek out if there were any other full colonels in the division who should be named (for parity). Normally there would only be the GSO1 (don't know about an SA division though. In the British army GSO1 would be a full colonel but sometimes was a lieutenant-colonel) since the Divisional engineer commander would have been a lieut.-col. as would the chief administrative staff officer (AQ). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You're joking, yes! The Col's too? I presume the "AQ" stands for "Adventure Quest" Farawayman (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

By a stroke of luck, I found that the CRA had been promoted to temp Brig by 22 Oct 44. I am so pleased i no longer have to go scouting for Colonels! Farawayman (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Awriiiiiiight!! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 21:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The rank of brigadier was never held substantively. And the administrative officer (most likely a colonel) would have been known as the Assistant Adjutant and Quartermaster General (AA&QMG). Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)