Wikipedia:Peer review/List of senior officers of British 2nd Division/archive1

List of senior officers of British 2nd Division[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

This is the first list page I have created. Ideally, I would like to get this article to featured list status, but I am not sure if it meets mustard. ~~I understand that an intro will be needed, but I am waiting to add that until I have fleshed out and sourced the main article so I can transpose sourced material. Outside of the intro,~~ does the list meet the standard and if not can someone advise on what improvements are needed?

Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment by AustralianRupert: G'day, Enigma, I hope you are well. One thing that stands out to me is the name of the list. "Senior officers" implies to me potentially that the list could be about more than just commanders (for instance CRA and CRE etc), although it could just be me. I wonder if it should be renamed "List of commanders of the British 2nd Division". Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the observation, I think this is a pretty good point and agree. I will wait on commented from Aza24, in case they have feel differently about this. If they have no objection, I believe we have consensus and will make the change.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aza24[edit]

I'll leave some comments in the next few days. Aza24 (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your observations.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, apologies for the delay:

In modern FLs (older ones may do this still) we try to avoid explaining the list directly, e.g. This article is a chronological list of all officers who held command during its long history. Notes draw attention to important milestones or additional information. – this is something that can be inferred by the average reader, from the title and looking at the list alone.
Likewise, I'm not sure For further information about the other divisions that were formed and who commanded them, see the main 2nd Division article. is needed either; a reader can reasonably infer this.
To a non-milhist reader like myself, I'm left wondering, what positions are considered a "senior officer"? I'm not sure "officers who held command" is enough, would rather see a short list in the first paragraph of the lead telling me what roles I should expect to see in the list
I've read through the prose and it seems pretty solid; we have some good prose editors at FLC who should be able to spot any room for improvement there, so I'm not worried
I'm not sure the list formatting is optimal at the moment, the notes column is so long that is overwhelms the actual content of the list, you could experiment with altering the column lengths.
- This being said, having both the title and individual in the same column seems unnecessary, and splitting this up could also reduce the span of the notes column. As in having "Major-General" in one column and "Rowland Hill" in the next.
Your ref formatting looks great, thank you. I will probably do a source review when/if you take this to FLC. Aza24 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I have started making changes to the list. I have not worked on the prose part just yet. Does the table look better now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! The table is a lot more user friendly and accessible. Aza24 (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]