Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)/archive1 - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2016 [1].

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 70th Infantry Division was a short-lived British unit (with it's origins in the 6th and 7th Infantry Divisions) that fought during the latter stages of the Siege of Tobruk, before being dispatched to India and broken up to reinforce the Chindits. The article has previously passed it's GA and A-Class reviews, I am hoping the good run continues. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've reviewed all of the changes since its A-class review and believe that the article meets the FA criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "During this fighting, two men – from units attached to the division – were awarded the Victoria Cross.": The Victoria Cross for one of them wasn't gazetted until February the next year, and I'm guessing the other VC wasn't instantaneous, either. It seems unlikely to me the medals were awarded during the fighting, but you may know different. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both your comments. I have amended the references to earning them during the battle, per your observation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I added about a para or two of material to this article, but I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved to be able to review it. I have the following comments:

  • Given that the article traces the (somewhat torturous!) history of the division back to 1939, the lead (especially the first para) is a bit lacking
    Expanded somewhat.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material on the division's operations in 1939 is a bit undetailed, and what's meant by "O'Connor had stated "harshness and unnecessary violence on the part of our soldiers" were to be curbed" is unclear as a result: what were the troops doing?
    Added some material, seems the 8th Division (and the SNS) were being somewhat naughty!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The headquarters was then assigned all troops based there" what did these comprise? (eg, was it basically an infantry division minus a HQ, or something else?)
    I have added brigade info, does this resolve this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good, especially as there's a full order of battle at the end of the article Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and its headquarters transformed into the Western Desert Force (WDF)" - perhaps note that this was basically a corps HQ
    I amended the sentence, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful to provide an outline of the 6th Division's order of battle upon formation in 1941 in the text of the article (at least which brigades were in the division). Also, where did its troops and constituent units come from?
  • "he was overruled by London" - it would be preferable to say what individual/organisation in London made this decision Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources used, and others I have just checked out, all agree that Wingate's relationship with Churchill was key; what Wingate wanted, Churchill made sure he got, including the breakup of the division it would seem.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now adressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks for the comments and review guys, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Look forward to your continued feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- reminder that the article will require a source review for formatting/reliability, you can request at the top of WT:FAC, unless one of the reviewers above would like to have a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I have followed up on your recommendation and requested a source review. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source check

Comment The sources in general look properly and consistently formatted. I'm just about ready to support, but have two minor things. For a few of the references, the square brackets have "1st. pub. HMSO <year>" which is different from the other citations. Is this necessary or have some significance I'm not aware of (if so it should be kept). Second, in the citations section there is a full citation mixed in with the shortened footnotes (It's ""7th Division Commander". The Times. 5 October 1938."). It's rather minor, but I'd like to see the formatting consistent with the full citation in the references and it linked to by a shortened footnote. Anyway, looks good and I'll support once those two things are addressed. Wugapodes (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comments, I have made amendments to the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sources Looks good! Wugapodes (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.