Template:Did you know nominations/1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

1st Armoured Division rhinoceros insignia

• ... that the 1st Armoured Division of the British Army chose a white rhinoceros on a black oval as their insignia (pictured)? Source: The design is a white standing rhinoceros on a black oval
  • ALT1: ... that in 1944 the 1st Armoured Division (insignia pictured) of the British Army suffered 1,111 casualties in just one month of fighting in Italy? Source: Jackson, William; et al. (2004) [1988]. Victory in the Mediterranean, Part II – June to October 1944. History of the Second World War United Kingdom Military Series. Vol. VI. London: Naval & Military Press. ISBN 978-1-84574-071-9.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Teleram
  • Comment: AGF on ALT1 source as it is offline in the article.

Improved to Good Article status by EnigmaMcmxc (talk) and Baffle gab1978 (talk). Nominated by Bruxton (talk) at 19:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Bruxton: Good article. Honestly, the first hook is not interesting to me but alt1 is good enough for me to approve in good faith. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The figure should be 1,111. The source gives a table of casualties, which for the 1st Armoured Division says 90 officers and 1,021 other ranks were killed. I assume the article author misread the former number as 900. I have corrected this in the article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sojourner in the earth: I changed the hook, pinging @Onegreatjoke: to take a look about approving. I have no access to the source so I AGF. Bruxton (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be fine now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)