Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

The ill-fated British division that fought at the Battle of Singapore. I have extensively expanded the article over the last few months, and it has just passed its GA review. I believe it meets the criteria for A-Class, and I am looking to move to an FA-class review following this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7

"In April, limited conscription was introduced." What is limited conscription?
Only 34,500 men were conscripted (all of the age of 20) as opposed, I suppose, to First World War-era full-scale conscription of everyone? Suggestions for rewording?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I understand this. Men in the TA were drafted into the Regular Army for six months, then discharged to serve in the TA again?
No. Civvies were conscripted, trained, and then assigned to the newly forming TA units. Per Messenger: "...were called up for six months' service with the Regular army as 'Militiamen' prior to joining new second line Territorial Divisions...". As this has caused confusion, suggestions on how to word better?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"During 1940, Winston Churchill (now Prime Minister)" But he hasn't been mentioned before.
Mentioned that Churchill had succeeded Chamberlain.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"United States President" Linlk "president" instead of "United States"
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"every possible unit diverted to the Far East" What units are we talking about?
A list of all units in a note? I can try and dig it up. From a quick glance, it was a mix of Australian, British, and Indian troops.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is that it was not every possible unit. That would have involved stripping the Middle East and the United Kingdom of all troops. It wasn't even every available unit; many formations like the 9th Division, 2nd New Zealand Division and 4th Indian Division were available but not sent. Just say "units were diverted to the Far East". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see how this can be misconstrued, and have reworded along your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"See also: General officer commanding" Don't see the value in this
It was a left-over from the copy and paste template, and not removed when the term was introduced into the main text; removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review Hawkeye, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I have addressed some of your concerns, and looking for further feedback on a few others. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support from PM This article is in great shape. I have a few comments/queries:

should First Line and Second Line have initial caps? I would have thought no, as they seem to be a descriptor
Thus far, I have just followed the style Joslen uses. Lose the capitals then?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. I did a quick Google Books search and couldn't find any others with initial caps. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc just checking you've seen this? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 thank you, I had overlooked your reply. I have edited the article accordingly.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
was the division also recruited from East Anglia? If so, perhaps state that clearly in the lead and body at appropriate points
SpecifiedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"was doing ~~their~~its fair share"
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "over one-third of the members of the division died..."
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps change the link to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom rather than just PM
Updated and piped the linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
link TA at first mention in the body
It is already linked in the lede. I can make this change, although it seems that is looked upon as double linking these days.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The general guidance is once in the lead and once at first mention in the body. Per MOS:DUPLINK. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that! AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "TA divisions" instead of "territorial divisions" I initially thought this was about geographical military districts
Addressed, and thanks for making that observation; made changes to several other articles using the same terminology.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in Note b, personal should be personnel
Likewise, thanksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
link 54th (East Anglian) Infantry Division at first mention in the body
As above, in regards to TA; will await your feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "This involved 34,500 militiamen..."
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
also, who were the militiamen? Territorials or another element of the army?
I have not really been able to confirm one way or the other. Some sources state they were part of the regular army (Perry, p. 49: "Including militiamen the Regular Army totalled 258,800"), whereas others say they were part of the TA from the get-go (Doyle and Foster, British Army Cap Badges of the Second World War, p. ??: "...the Militia ... conscripted into the Territorial Army..."). Does not appear that the Military Training Act 1939 is available online to see the actual wording, and using Google Books to search for that term leads to no further enlightenment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Levy) is probably unnecessary
That must have popped up during the copyedit; removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
link 53rd Infantry Brigade at first mention in the body
As above, in regards to TA; will await your feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note this was not in the lede; apologies for the delay. AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
suggest " as equipment became available, to reinforce the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) already dispatched to Europe." If that is what is meant? Then use just BEF in the later sentence
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"abandonment of much of the ~~army~~BEF's"
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Deputy Adjutant-General to the Forces"?
FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
link Merton Beckwith-Smith at first mention in the body
As above, in regards to TA; will await your feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
after first mention, Alan Brooke should just be Brooke
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ranks for Wavell and Auchinleck?
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
personal should be personnel
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and agreed on the condition"
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"awaiting American ships"
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
link Operation Crusader
As above, in regards to TA; will await your feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the quote from Wigmore, should it be "second in importance"?
Quite correct, addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps mention Bennett was Australian?
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
stick a colon after "and one said"
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and Westforce withdrew to Labis"
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
explicitly mention that the IGD was Japanese
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HQ hasn't been introduced yet, suggest in full
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
rank for Percival?
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GOC Malaya Command
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Duke's common name in full in the redlink "Cecil Duke"? Also, perhaps mention Duke earlier when the 53rd Bde arrived in Malaya
Moved, and first name introducedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the squashing of text between the map and quote isn't a good look. I would dispense with the pic of the ship burning, which doesn't add much, and move the map down to that position.
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "it was decided that once the 18th Infantry Division had arrived in full force, it would be allocated to the sector on the island believed to be where the Japanese would land, as it would be the strongest formation available with fresh troops."
Suggestion taken upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would use beachhead rather than bridgehead
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"at 22:30 on 8 February"
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "smaller perimeter around the city of Singapore"
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps spell out 4RNR, as it is only done in a note, not in the body
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5th and 18th Divisions
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps mention that Weinberg is a historian
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
you can drop the parentheses on (a former member of the division)
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the GOC section should be "General officers commanding"
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the image licensing

That's me done. Great job! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker for your review and comments. I have addressed several issues, and left comments for a few others. I will have to tackle the remainder a little later. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed all, with the exception of the First/Second Line and Militiamen points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this for GA, and having reviewed the changes since then, believe that it is up to scratch for A-class. I have a couple of minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "over one-third of the members of the division..." --> "over one-third of division's personnel"?
  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "was introduced. This involved 34,500 militiamen, all aged 20, who were conscripted..." --> "was introduced. This resulted in 34,500 militiamen, all aged 20, being conscripted..."?
  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- " The division was formed from from men..." (repeated word "from from")
  Whoops!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Brigadier Duke" --> just "Duke" on second mention
  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- the block quote after "On 20 February, Churchill..." possibly needs a citation for where you got it from
  AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "consequences — especially": the emdash should be unspaced per WP:DASH
  FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Australian officer[62]": suggest maybe "Unnamed Australian officer"
  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- in the References, I suggest adding a page range for the Connelly chapter in the Aflerbach work
  AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- same as above for Farrell
  AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- in the References, "Cap badge: The Story of Four" --> "Cap Badge: The Story of Four"
  FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
  AustralianRupert, thank you for your additional review; I shall work towards your comments shortly.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  AustralianRupert: I have worked towards the suggestions and recommendations that you made. Once more, thank you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from CPA-5

It is a great page in my opinion however i have some comments.

Can you change this line "Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire]]" --> "Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire".
Whoops, left over link removal. Thanks for the catch.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please (if it's possible of course) put the name of the person who said this below the line "... your message of January 23, in which you said that the evacuation of Singapore would be 'an inexcusable betrayal'. Agreeably with your point of view, we therefore put the 18th Division ... into Singapore instead of diverting them to Burma, and ordered them to fight it out to the end. They were lost at Singapore and did not save it, whereas they could almost certainly have saved Rangoon. I take full responsibility with my colleagues on the Defence Committee for this decision; but you also bear a heavy share on account of your telegram."
Added Churchill's name to the bottom of the quote.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd unlink this one "by the parent 54th (East Anglian) Infantry Division." and link this one "a duplicate of the first line 54th (East Anglian) Infantry Division."
SwitchedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a capital letter "Adam Park estate" 'cause the main page said that it should written in "Adam Park Estate".
AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all i hope it will help you further, i know it was not a lot but i couldn't found any issue anymore. Good luck i really hope it will become an "A article". CPA-5 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PA-5: thank you for your review of the article, I have attempted to address your comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Image and misc. review by Sturmvogel_66

Images appropriately licensed.
No DABs, external links OK
A couple of examples of overlinking.
I believe I have zapped them all; excluding the ones that are highlighted due to being in the lede.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur
I'd strongly suggest integrating the list of commanders into the main body of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on this point? Currently, all commanders are mentioned in the text with context provided.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, probably too much beer. If the commanders are already in the main body, then what's the point of the list of commanders?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
  No worries. As with the 61st Div review, I have noted that these lists are a common feature of such articles if only as a quick reference guide to the GOCs; does that warrant inclusion?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my comments on the review of the 61st Division, but my preference is to get rid of them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

No Location for "Playfair... The Mediterranean and Middle East: The Germans Come to the Help of their Ally"
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ironside... The Ironside Diaries, Published too early for ISBN; possibly reprint. Missing OCLC (useful but not required).
Great catch! The ISBN is actually from the book above it ... where I had copied and pasted the template. Removed it, and added in the OCLC link.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One eblink has an access date, 4 do not. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, lost on this one. You mean remove the access date from the Imperial War Museum ref?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about this; it's gone. Either you altered something, or the errors were false positives and I tweaked my script. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.