Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/19th Mechanized Division (Greece)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

19th Mechanized Division (Greece)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

19th Mechanized Division (Greece) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A short-lived formation that was swept aside by the German Panzers, this was the Greek Army's first attempt at a modern, mechanized formation, although in reality it was an ad hoc assortment of equipment and men. Its story does however encapsulate the conditions in which Greece fought in April 1941. The article passed GA last year, and I've added a few details and tweaked around since. I think the article is complete, comprehensive, and as easy to follow as possible. Any recommendations for improvement are of course welcome. Constantine ✍ 18:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support

In generally good shape as-is.

  • I made some edits to spread out some of the larger paragraphs, breaking them at obvious points where the topic changed.
  • Citing is good, but I can't read Greek and others are dead-tree so I can't really delve into that too much.
  • Images are all appropriately labelled, but it could use another two or three in the lower part of the body where it is currently just a big block of text.
  • Perhaps there are images of the 2nd Panzer in Greece, even if they were not part of this battle?

Other than that, good to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Maury Markowitz for taking the time, and for your edits. I've found a nice and suitable pic of the 2nd Panzer, taken just a few days after the events described in the article, but still relevant. Any suggestions beyond ACR requirements? Hopefully the article was easy to follow... Constantine ✍ 14:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only remaining suggestion I have is to move the 2nd PZ image down one section so it's a little closer to the "correct date". Other that that I think the article is great as it is, I found it easy to read and understand - which can be a real problem in some "action diaries". Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Constantine ✍ 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild Not a lot to say about this other than: Well done, what a stunning article. Nevertheless:

  • "which resulted in two falling out of action and considerable wear on the rest, especially in view of the almost complete lack of spare parts." I don't think that the lack of spare parts made the wear worse, which is how I read the sentence. Maybe: "...exacerbated by the almost complete lack..."?
  • "With the onset of the German offensive on 6 April, the division assumed covering TSAM's left flank up to Lake Doiran" reads a little oddly. "Assumed" doesn't really work. 'Started'? 'Commenced'?
  • "First German probing attacks during the night were successfully repelled." "First" should be 'Initial' or 'The first'.
  • The 2nd para of the article proper, ending "Despite its designation, therefore, the Mechanized Cavalry Regiment was actually a motorized infantry rather than a mechanized infantry unit." needs a cite. I assume Blau or Stockings and Hancock.
    • I think that the distinction between "motorized" and "mechanized" can be assumed to be common knowledge for military-related articles. BTW, neither Blau nor Stockings and Hancock have been used to reference the distinction, but rather the use of different terminology in foreign (English) literature. Constantine ✍ 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cplakidas: Certainly the understanding of the distinction can be assumed. I think that I was unclear. You are stating a fact, without a cite, which I consider to be OR. "...the Mechanized Cavalry Regiment was actually a motorized infantry rather than a mechanized infantry unit." As it stands that is your opinion, or perhaps logical conclusion from the sources. As it happens I agree. However, if it is not backed up by a source it shouldn't be there. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I sort of disagree, it is more of a clarification of the use of a term that has a specific technical meaning; that is not quite WP:OR. Anyhow, I am removing it as it is not exactly vital to the article. Constantine ✍ 13:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a few copy edit changes. Revert anything you don't like.

A good read - flows nicely. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your edits and the suggestions, which have mostly been implemented. Constantine ✍ 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Constantine, this article looks pretty good to me. I fixed a couple of typos and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Katerini is overlinked in the Combat history section
  • slightly inconsistent presentation: compare "03:00" with "7:00", "4:00", "2:30" and "4:30"
  • slightly inconsistent capitalisation: compare "14th and 18th infantry divisions" with "19th and 20th Divisions"
  • "British commander Henry Maitland Wilson": rank for Wilson?
  • "Maj. Gen. Lioumbas" --> just "Lioumbas" as his rank has already been introduced per MOS:SURNAME
  • the information in the last sentence of the lead isn't covered in the body; it is cited, so that is fine, but I'd suggest adding it to either the final part of the Combat history section or you could create a short Legacy section
  • in the Sources section, I suggest translating the titles of the Christodoulou works for consistency with the General Staff work
  • in the Sources section, is there an ISBN, OCLC or ISSN for the Christodoulou and General Staff works?
Hi AustralianRupert, thanks a lot for taking the time to review. All suggestions are good and have been implemented. On the last, I was unable to find anything on the Ippiko-Tethorakismena journal, which isn't surprising since it is a limited-circulation professional journal (which I was lucky to find hosted online), and there is none on the General Staff work, since it is an internal army publication (formally it is a military regulations document classified under training instructions) for issue to units, schools, etc. I am adding a link to it though, hosted at the Cavalry–Armour Retired Officers Union, as such documents are not inherently under copyright. Constantine ✍ 07:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, your changes look good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: G'day, Nikki, this review looks like it is almost ready to be closed. Would you mind taking a look at the images? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've removed the phot in question from the article. Constantine ✍ 10:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • This source (p. 86) and this source p. 210 also call it the "19th Motorized Division". So the alternative, perhaps "more accurate" name might as well be given an honorable mention.
    • It is already mentioned in a footnote, but given the persistent use of the name in English sources, I've chosen to move it into the main text
  • Lioumbas fled with some of his officers into the hills instead of surrendering his person, which I think is relevant to mention.
    • This is already mentioned in the very last section, "The division's commander, chief of staff, and a few other officers chose instead to withdraw to the area of Chalkidiki".
  • What happened to the surviving armoured vehicles after the surrender?
    • Not much really survived, but I cannot find any reference to this either way. The Germans probably made use of trucks etc, but I cannot really verify this.
  • The 19th Mechanized Division is considered the first major Greek mechanized formation Considered by who, the modern Greek army, historians? It should be specified.
    • Clarified now.
  • Are there any cemeteries or monuments that commemorate this unit?
    • I could not find anything unit-specific in the references, in the Hellenic Army's memorial database, or online. Most of the short-lived units of the 1940-41 war are not really well known or commemorated.

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: hi and thanks for taking the time to review. I've tried to answer the points you raised above. Any further comments or suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine ✍ 10:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All my comments are addressed, now supporting promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:20, 6 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/19th_Mechanized_Division_(Greece)&oldid=846057853"