Talk:9th (Highland) Infantry Division/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 02:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some, hopefully minor, changes. Please flag up anything you are not happy with.

Optional: Consider adding alt text to the images.
Only really an issue if you wish to take the article further: "9th (Highland) Infantry Division" and "9th (Highland) Division" are both used; consistency would be good. (IMO "9th (Highland)" is an acceptable short form.)
I have moved to make this a bit more consistent, leaving the full term in use in a few places and just "9th (Highland)" elsewhere. This work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me.

Cites 38 and 48 use "and"; other cites use a comma. Is there a reason you have used "and"?
Updated these to just use commasEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 33: is there a reason why page numbers are not given?
I have only been able to access an e-book version, which does not include page numbers. Prior experience is to use the "loc=" field in the ref in order to provide a cite.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that that will do for GA.

Infobox: "Size"; information in the infobox should be repeated in the main body.
"Size" (again): IMO the source given does not support the division being "at most 10,000" strong at any point during its existence. The source gives this for a specific point in time. Given that this was at the height of the Battle of France and that the 9th was "used as a source of reinforcements for other units" it is possible that it was stronger at some earlier point.
In regards to these two points, I have made some tweaks and included the info in the article as well.

Looks good.

That's all from me. A fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have made changes as outlined above. Welcome additional feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will promote it now, but leave it on my watch list and go through it again over the next few days. I will post any thoughts re improvements for ACR or FAC on the talk page. You are doing a fine job of running through these British divisions. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

In general, the dropping of the definite article before Arabic ordinals is a "military-speak" contraction and not grammatically correct. Suggest adding it in throughout. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EnigmaMcmxc: That's my issue, so I'll put them back in. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thatEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]