Talk:66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very little to quibble about here. A few comments:

drop the commas in the first sentence of the lead
Done
pipe a link to Battle of France for "rapid German victory on mainland Europe in 1940"
Done
suggest "whilst others were absorbed by existing infantry divisions"
Done
commas before and after Adolf Hitler, same with Leslie Hore-Belisha
Done
comma after Brigadier, Royal Artillery
Done
comma after Lancashire Fusiliers
Done
what does "numbers, styles, and titles" refer to?
The next sentence gives a particular example, with the divisional number and insignia. Based off Perry, this went right now to the battalion level too (although out the scope of this article). Do you have a suggestion on how to make this more clear?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean by this that the commanders had a say in the titles of their formations and units? So the CO of the battalions could choose what regiment they belonged to or the ordinal to be used for their battalion? Or do you mean something else? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant quote from Perry:

"Individuality was reflected in the styles and titles adopted by the duplicate units and formations. Some repeated numbers used by the 'second line' in the previous war, others used former New Army titles, some revived units disbanded or converted in recent years while others simply continued the regiment's numerical series."

Based off the rest of the page, he does appear to be talking about units of all sizes. A general example of this would be the 38th Welsh, which was the second line of the 53rd in the Second World War. The First World War second line was the 68th, and the 38th was a New Army unit. In this particular case, the 66th adopted the same number and insignia but not the title.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "This was a lofty goal for the division"
Done
"6th Battalion, Border Regiment, had no small arms"
Done
"Commander-in-Chief Home Forces, General Walter Kirke,"
Done
"The division replaced the 49th (West Riding) Infantry Division in Northern Command" but didn't they join Northern Command in November? Needs some clarification.
I have tweak thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "against a war establishment of seventy-two modern"
Done
suggest "This involved the decision to abandon the two-brigade motor division concept", this then gets rid of the parenthetical mention of two brigades later
Done
suggest "for the basic infantry division"
Done
"four second-line territorial divisions"→"four second-line TA divisions"
Done
delete "(made up of three brigades)" as this has been mentioned already
Done
link 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division for the motor division when first mentioned
Done
link 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division for the motor division when first mentioned
Done
strictly speaking, in 1940 German motorised divisions did not consist of three brigades, they consisted of three regiments, each of three battalions. The brigade concept was used by the Germans, but mainly within panzer divisions by 1941 to group two panzer or two rifle regiments.
I have made a little tweak to the note to reflect this. Out of personal curiosity, do you have an example of a panzer division brigade with three regiments?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of. For example, in May 1940 1st Panzer Division had a panzer brigade of two regiments each of two battalions, and a motorised brigade the main fighting elements of which were a motorised infantry regiment of three battalions, plus the reconnaissance battalion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thatEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just one thing I'm not entirely sure about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One final thing, the Further reading sources have ref=harv fields, but no citations link to them. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by an acceptably licensed image with an appropriate caption. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]