Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of British divisions in World War II/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of British divisions in World War II[edit]

List of British divisions in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list covers all British divisions that were active during the Second World War. This is a list of 85 formations (two airborne, 12 anti-aircraft, 11 armoured, one cavalry, ten County (coastal defence), and 49 infantry), although not all were active at the same time. The article also provides supplemental information for each division type, such as an overview all their role, equipment, and intended and actual strengths. A background section overviews the size of the British Army, how many divisions were intended to be raised, and the fluctuating number that were active. The list has previously been assessed and passed as an A-Class list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note
  • @EnigmaMcmxc – The instructions state "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." I see that you have nominated this one and List of commanders of the British 2nd Division together, within span of minutes, and neither of the nomination has any comments at all......... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right ... I've already started reading the first list and I'll probably support, and if so, I'm guessing you won't have long to wait for one additional support, and then you can nom this one (as long as there are no unresolved issues). - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am so sorry, I spaced over that! Should I just remove this from the list, and re-add it later when appropriate?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure ... pinging PresN. - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine with me, it doesn't appear that it will have to wait long, so no point deleting and recreating it, which is the other option. --PresN 12:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EnigmaMcmxc – I see that your other nomination (List of commanders of the British 2nd Division) has two support without any oppose. Reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. So, this nomination can now proceed, and can be placed back with other nominations. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Version reviewed — 1 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Citations

  • Ref#45 – add URL access dates
  • Ref#48 – add URL access dates
    • Regarding these two, the access-date= template does not work within the confines of the Gazette reference template. Any suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#151 – I'll capitalize 'B' in 'badge'
  • Ref#190 – add URL access date, also it has 404 error.
    • Looks like I forgot to add in the "supp=y" part of the template, these both work now. Regarding the access date part, please see above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • All the books/journals in the 'References' section are well formatted. Most of them have OCLC or ISBN number, properly formatted. Publication details and location are provided in all.
  • Do check for links of authors.
    • 'Playfair, I. S. O.' is linking to a redirect page, which should be fixed.
    • 'Playfair, I. S. O.' should be linked in every citation where they are the author. Per MOS:REFLINK, repeating links in citations is not' considered overlinking.
  • Few other authors like George Forty, Lionel F. Ellis, William Jackson, etc. should be linked. Check for all the authors.
    • Links added to the above, several others, and all checkedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • No issues at all. The list has a wide range of sources, all seem reliable.
Verifiability
  • Page numbers are provided for all book/journal sources. I spot checked a few, and found no issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address all. The only one I have not, so far, is regarding the Gazette per the above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a major issue if the template doesn't support access date. Source review – Pass. Would appreciate your comments on this nomination. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • World War II or Second World War? Be consistent.
    My standing policy is that the vast majority of British-related sources use "Second World War" as the correct terminology for British English. However, its apparently not sound to use that as the article title. The only time "World War II" is used is in the article title, book titles, and relevant links in the see also section; it is "Second World War" throughout the article, so about as consistent as one can get without having to have a fight about the article title. I am, however, more than happy to move the article; I just think it will end up getting reverted at some point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Here Major-General Charles Keightley,..." where was this picture taken, geographically I mean?
    I have added Italy to the end of the sentence, prior to the date.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sentences in the lead are referenced, just two. That material should be in the main text too and referenced there instead.
    I have removed the refs from the lede, and inserted that cited text into the background section and done some rewording. Do these changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can link British Army in the lead.
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again in the opening sentence of the main body.
    DittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British paratroopers during training" on my screen, this just squashes the table a bit, could use the {{clear}} template to stop that happening.
    I have added the template in, I hope I have used it correctly?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italian/Tunisian Campaign -> campaign according to our own articles.
    Capital droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No good reason to make a Notes column (free text) sortable.
    Sorting ability removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the Western Desert Campaign before" campaign issue again.
    capital letter also droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of these in the "Armoured divisions" table.
    I think this was in reference to the campaign links, which have now been addressed. If not, please let me know.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cavalry divisions" seems silly to have a sortable table with one entry.
    Table updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division was redesignated as the 77th..." complete sentence so needs a full stop, check all others (e.g. "The division ended the war in Germany").
    I think I got all related onesEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[169][137][170]" ref order, check other multiple refs.
    References reorderedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick run through, looks like a decent list. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all aboveEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man:: Just wanted to follow-up on this, and establish if the changes made addressed your concerns.

Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

  • Support I reviewed this article at A-class and support its promotion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "the UK had two armoured, 24 infantry and seven anti-aircraft divisions" - these should either be all written as numbers or all as words
  • "Others, such as the 79th Armoured Division were never intended to act as a fighting formation" - comma needed after Division
  • "two airborne, 12 anti-aircraft, 11 armoured, one cavalry" etc - see above
  • "the regular army, which numbered 224,000 men with a reserve of 173,700 at the start of the war and the part-time" - comma needed after war
  • In the first paragraph of the background section you use both "Interwar period" (with a capital I and no hyphen) and "inter-war period" (with a lower case I and a hyphen)
  • "had shrunk to 26 divisions: five armoured and 21 infantry" - see above
  • "The recruitment[...] took through to 1943" read oddly. Maybe "The recruitment for the size of this force took until 1943"
  • Date column in the anti-aircraft table does not sort correctly (November sorts before October)
  • "In Italy, starting June 1944" => "In Italy, starting in June 1944"
  • Cavalry photo caption does not need a full stop
  • "These formations maintained their costal defence role" - coastal spent incorrectly
  • "The division was formed when "Brocforc" was redesignated." - can we get any more explanation of what "Brocforc" was.......?
  • Infantry photo caption does not need a full stop
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have made several edits to the article, and attempted to address all points raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

  • "which numbered 224,000 men with a reserve of 173,700 at the start of the war, and the part-time Territorial Army that numbered 438,100 with a reserve of around 20,750 men" — are the first three figures: 224,000, 173,700, and 438,100 exact figures or rough estimates?
    French notes that the regular army, TA, the varying reserves, and those conscripted prior to the outbreak of the war, totaled 892,697 men. He does not provide an accurate breakdown for each branch, other than the quoted rounded figures. Any recommended edit?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the outbreak of the war, some of these divisions had formed while others were being created." — By the outbreak of which war? We didn't discuss the second world war in the prose.
    Clarification addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The referenced in the "Airborne" table should be center-aligned.
    FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1935 and the start of the war the British Army" — I think there should be a comma after 'of the war', there is a natural pause
    Concur, and added.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table in the "Anti-aircraft" section: If the Notes column has been used just once, why not remove the column, and convert that note to a end-footnote?
    I was aiming for consistency, but feedback taken into consideration and the table updated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aside these minor nitpicks, I support this list for promotion as a featured list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments and feedback. I have made the changes that you suggested, and provided requested information above to your first point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 23:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_British_divisions_in_World_War_II/archive1&oldid=1065522181"