Talk:47th (London) Infantry Division/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one following its nomination for GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments/suggestions: G'day, nice work as always. I have the following comments/suggestions/observations by way of an initial review: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead mention 1946 as the year it was disbanded (per the infobox)
DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, link battalion, brigade
DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, The division, which was established using the motor division concept, was fully mobile --> "The division was established using the motor division concept, and was fully mobile..."?
DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, aided in the deception and administrative side of Operation Overlord --> seems a little awkward
I have reworded and expanded, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
responsible for the completion of training of soldiers who --> "responsible for providing final combat training to soldiers who..."?
I have tweaked this sentence, largely along your lines. I have not stated combat, as French only states platoon, company etc level training and a 3-day exercise. I am unsure if this should be inferred specifically as combat training, or if that would be the correct term to use. I will defer to your judgement.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too easy, your change works from my perspective. (Looks like modern day infantry minor tactics training to me - essentially very basic combat drills. These are generally followed by more complex collective training at sub unit, unit and then formation level). AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the annexation of Sudetenland in --> "the Sudetenland"?
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
came to the Munich Agreement --> "signed the Munich Agreement"?
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
four First-World-War-vintage: not sure about the hyphens here, probably better as "First World War-vintage"
DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
authors of The London Rifle Brigade's History of the War: italics for the title of the book?
This appears to have been implemented in the recent copyedit, "history of the war" is not the title of the book. I have tweaked this sentence, but do you recommend additional changes to avoid future misunderstandings?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your change looks good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
were transferred to 30th Armoured Brigade --> "to the 30th Armoured Brigade"
DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kelso's prior experience --> "Utterson-Kelso's"?
QuiteEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
placed on the lower establishment: can this term (lower establishment), be defined (potentially in a note)
The next sentence is potentially the closest sourced statement we have about the lower and higher establishment and difference. For example, Joslen doesn't provide different figures for lower-establishment divisions. French suggests they were supposed to be without or reduced number of certain units, but the OOBs suggest this was not a general across the board definition.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries -- I've tweaked the wording regarding this a little. Please check you are happy with that change. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more – including Templer—were: inconsistent use of dashes
Updated dash template thingyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
were leaked through double agents --> "were deliberately leaked..."?
DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
a part of the administrative and organising side of Operation Overlord regarding --> seems a little awkwardly worded
I have made a tweak, does it work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that change looks good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
inconsistent caps "lower establishment" v "Lower Establishment"
DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soldiers were given five weeks --> "These soldiers were given..." (to avoid starting two sentences in a row with "soldiers")
DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the body just says "corps training" but the lead provides more details ("basic training and their job-specific training") -- probably should be the other way around (more detail in the body, less in the lead)
Switched upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Major-General Utterson-Kelso" --> no need for rank at this point as he has already been introduced
DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the lead links and mentions the demobilisation process but this doesn't appear to be mentioned in the body of the article specifically
Article tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, Geoffrey, Powell --> Powell, Geoffrey
Fixed!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, is there an OCLC number for the work by Maude?
AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
image licencing looks fine, although I'd suggest adding an indicative date to the description page for "File:47th div.svg", outlining when the badge was likely designed
I have edited the page to include a range for the designEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ext links all work; there are no dab or dup links (no action required)
the article is well referenced (no action required)
the Earwig tool reports no copyright violation likely (no action required)

Thank you for the review. I have left some comments above for you, and otherwise actioned your suggestions (hopefully to your satisfaction :) ) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks -- please check you are happy with those changes and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

1. Well written: Y

a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: Y

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

c. it contains no original research; and

d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: Y

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.