Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/76th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

76th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

[edit]
Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

76th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 76th Infantry Division was a British Second World War formation that stayed at home for the duration of the war. It went through several transformations: initially from a coastal defense unit, to a training formation, and eventually to a phantom division that plagued German fears about an invasion of their northern shores. The article has passed it's GA review, and eventually I would like to further elevate the article's status to FA. All comments welcome. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I believe that this meets the A-class criteria. I've done some copyediting, so please check you are happy with my changes. In addition, I have the following observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The division was involved in establishing the ability of the German intelligence services"... was it actively involved in this? If so, in what way? Or was it just the circumstance of its existence?
It is the latter; Hesketh uses the division as an example of one of the many inaccuracies in the German document, which aided in establishing that the Germans were intercepting wireless communications. Does some rewording need to take place?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, yes, in that case, I think it should be reworded slightly as currently it sounds like it was actively involved, e.g. mounted some sort of operation to find this out. I'm struggling to think right now as I seem to have gotten crook (translation for proper English speakers: "unwell") over the weekend. Perhaps just remove the topic sentence "The division was involved ..." and then adjust the second sentence. Sorry, I'm not being much help here...I'll try to come back when I'm thinking more clearly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1st Leicestershire Regiment" --> should this be "1st Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment" for consistency? Same same with 18th Welch?
So use to lingo, I have made the amendmentsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • "The other two formations were the 48th and 77th Infantry Divisions" --> I suggest just working this note into the body of the article, rather than keeping it as a note
I have made a change, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for: "The 80th Infantry (Reserve) Division."
Integrated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "completed their Corps training" --> probably should be lower case "corps" here;
Amended.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "other training divisions (the 48th, 77th, and the 80th)" --> the links here could be dropped if you incorporate the two points above about these formations;
Removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, your changes look good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dabs, external links check out, citation check tool reveals no issues, no dublicate links. (no action req'd)
    • No alt text provided for images so you might consider adding it (not an ACR req, so a suggestion only)
    • Do File:8th Royal Lincolnshire Regiment Norfolk July 1941.jpg and File:Eastern Command training 1942.jpg need a PD US tag?
    • "New recruits to the army...", should army be capitalized here?
    • "Notably, the formation was used..." delete notably (per WP:PEACOCK)
    • Repetitive language here: "was intended to be used for the imaginary Operation Trolleycar. This operation was intended..." (intended twice in close proximity, perhaps reword one?)
    • In the lead "...the division was disbanded." probably add the year (i.e. 1944) to provide a more complete summary.
    • This sentence seems a bit awkward to me: "In 1940, in the early stages of the Second World War following the Battle of France, the United Kingdom was under threat of invasion from Nazi Germany" Consider instead something like: "In the early stages of the Second World War following the Battle of France in 1940, the United Kingdom was under threat of invasion from Nazi Germany..."
    • "Late in the year..." Do you mean late in 1941? Or do you mean that in late 1940 the British government believed an invasion was possible in 1941? I found this sentence confusing.
    • "Using the recruits in this manner allowed..." there seems to have been an illogical progression here. I'm assuming the County Divisions were made up of recruits as a result of this phrase, but you don't actually state this prior.
      • I don't follow, as I can see the article following the progression: the size of the army swells with new recruits, new battalions are formed with these men, who are in turn handed over to the County Divisions. Can you clarify or provide a suggestion?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess I'm wondering at what point in the training of these men / the raising of the units and formations of the division did the men cease being "recruits" and become trained "soldiers"? The implication from the sentence is that they were still recruits when the division was raised, i.e. to my mind "untrained". If that was the case then there is no change required, it just seems counterintuitive to me because I would have assumed that they would have gone through individual recruit training and then collective training at sub-unit, unit and even brigade level prior to the formation of the division (given that you say these units were formed independently to start off with) and hence would have been "trained" soldiers by the time they became part of the division. I accept that this may not have been the case though given the exigencies of the early war period, so perhaps a different process took place. Happy to leave it up to you to decide what to do here (including to keep it as is of cse). Anotherclown (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repetitive language here: "...the threat of a German invasion of the United Kingdom. However, the British still had to consider the threat of a German invasion..." (specifically use of phrase "threat of German invasion"). This could probably be worded more succinctly.
    • This sentence could be tightened: "The war-establishment, the on-paper strength, of an infantry division at this time was 17,298 men." Consider instead: "The war-establishment on paper of an infantry division at this time was 17,298 men." or something like that.
    • "...the army overhauled how..." → "...the Army overhauled how..."
    • Slightly repetitive prose here: "Utterson-Kelso took command of the 47th Infantry (Reserve) Division, which took over...", consider instead something like: "Utterson-Kelso assumed command of the 47th Infantry (Reserve) Division, which took over..."
    • "During 1944, the British army..." → "British Army" (caps for proper noun)
    • Is there a missing word here: "As a deception unit, the division was assigned to notional Operation Trolleycar...", should it be "As a deception unit, the division was assigned to the notional Operation Trolleycar..."
    • Repetitive language here: "...notional Operation Trolleycar.[32] Trolleycar was initially envisioned as a notional amphibious assault..." (notional twice), consider instead: "the notional Operation Trolleycar.[32] Trolleycar was initially envisioned as a fictitious amphibious assault ..." or something similar. Anotherclown (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments. However, I will not be able to address the above issues until next Thursday, at the earliest. Till then.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks fine to me. I'm a little puzzled though as to why we've prioritised an obscure division like the 76th. (Although the viewing stats tall me the difference between obscure British divisions and famous ones isn't that great.) A pity no one has written up John Edward Utterson-Kelso, who won the DSO twice in the Great War.

  • "due the losses suffered during the" I think the word "to" is required in here.

Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank for your edits, and Hawkeye for your comments (I have fixed the missing word highlighted). As for the why: I spotted an error on the 70th Div article, which resulted in me rewriting it and during that process I found some info on the 80th that turned into me writing up all the reserve divs (save the 45th, I havent got there yet).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review I have reviewed all the images in this article, and with my unschooled yet wary eye, I see no issues with their licensing. I would be glad if that doyenne of image licensing, Nikkimaria would check my work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - we just need to include a licensing tag for the design used for File:Flag_of_the_British_Army.svg, as well as the image itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki! If you could sort that one, EnigmaMcmxc, this looks ready to be nominated for promotion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the PD-UKGov tag, and removed the other stuff which clearly is not appropriate. Is this sufficient?
If not, yikes it is a toughy! Other than a like million google hits with copies of the flag, I have found nothing to state it officially exists (other than the Queen's Regs, which only describes it) and nothing that backs up the story on the apparent source site of it being created in 1938. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I don't see where you have added that tag? It's not on the image page. And is there an earlier regulations document that describes it? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad! I messed around with the wrong one (it appears there are two or more of the same image on the commons); I will add the PD-UKGov tag tomorrow.
As for earlier regs, The King's Regulations for the Army and the Royal Army Reserve, 1940 would appear to be the earliest one after the flag was unveiled but I have yet to find a copy online. I shall continue the hunt tomorrow.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After much tinkering, how does it look now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2015 (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/76th_Infantry_Division_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=691502635"