Talk:2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 05:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Lead
- Can you find a way to avoid having consecutive sentences start with "The division" in the first paragraph of the lead?
- I made a couple of tweaks to the lede, I hope these work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Peninsular War
- Was the division formed from newly-raised troops or pre-existing units? If the latter, do we know which units?
- It as pre-existing forces, and I have tweaked the sentence to reflect that. We do know which units they were, but for space constraints I have tried to avoid identifying specific forces throughout the article if it was not necessary. There is a detailed order of battle article, which is linked to at the bottom. However, I could add in that information if you think it would benefit?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fine with keeping it simple per space constraints
- It as pre-existing forces, and I have tweaked the sentence to reflect that. We do know which units they were, but for space constraints I have tried to avoid identifying specific forces throughout the article if it was not necessary. There is a detailed order of battle article, which is linked to at the bottom. However, I could add in that information if you think it would benefit?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- "Historian Charles Oman wrote that under cover of a blinding hailstorm, 800 Polish lancers had approached. The lancers charged into the British flank, inflicting 1,248 casualties, or 75 percent of the brigade's strength. Total divisional losses in the battle amounted to 2,868." - I'm a little confused as to what is being attributed to Oman. Are the losses, the hailstorm, or the Polish attack attributed to Oman?
- All of it was attributed to Oman. Re-reading that section, I have removed Oman from the beginning of the sentence. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for starting to review this article, I know its a biggy and I appreciate any and all comments :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Crimean War
- Be consistent with de Lacy Evans vs De Lacy Evans
- Tweaked accordinglyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Do we know losses for Inkerman?
- After a search through the Gazette, I found the casualty list for each regiment; I have tallied them up and added it into the article. It does not break it down by division (so potentially missing info on the headquarters staff), and the Royal Artillery losses are lumped together (so I cannot state what casualties the division's RA batteries suffered).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- 1918
- Is it possible to give an overall 1914-1918 total of war losses by the division?
- Unfortunately, no. Wryall includes a wonderful in volume two for the last two years of the war, but fails to do the same in volume one. He does provide 16 appendices of casualties, but they are inconsistent (some include all casualties, some only include officers) and only cover the certain timeframes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Pausing here, will resume later. Hog Farm Talk 17:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- References
- For the DeVore source, Massachusetts is not a specific enough publication location. I think MIT is in Cambridge, Massachusetts, so go with the city. Just saying Massachusetts is kinda like just giving Devonshire as a publishing location
I'm actually ready to pass it at this point. I'd have some additional comments for an ACR or FAC, but I think this one meets the GA criteria as is. Well sourced, sources are relaible, image licensing looks good, prose appears to be decently-written and accurate, etc. I'm less strict on prose than many, so expect to likely get plenty of prose comments from others at higher levels. Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)