Talk:9th (Highland) Infantry Division

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9th (Highland) Infantry Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705211343/http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201900-2011.pdf to http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201900-2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:9th (Highland) Infantry Division/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 02:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have made some, hopefully minor, changes. Please flag up anything you are not happy with.

• Optional: Consider adding alt text to the images.
• Only really an issue if you wish to take the article further: "9th (Highland) Infantry Division" and "9th (Highland) Division" are both used; consistency would be good. (IMO "9th (Highland)" is an acceptable short form.)

  I have moved to make this a bit more consistent, leaving the full term in use in a few places and just "9th (Highland)" elsewhere. This work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me.

• Cites 38 and 48 use "and"; other cites use a comma. Is there a reason you have used "and"?

  Updated these to just use commasEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Cite 33: is there a reason why page numbers are not given?

  I have only been able to access an e-book version, which does not include page numbers. Prior experience is to use the "loc=" field in the ref in order to provide a cite.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess that that will do for GA.

• Infobox: "Size"; information in the infobox should be repeated in the main body.
• "Size" (again): IMO the source given does not support the division being "at most 10,000" strong at any point during its existence. The source gives this for a specific point in time. Given that this was at the height of the Battle of France and that the 9th was "used as a source of reinforcements for other units" it is possible that it was stronger at some earlier point.

  In regards to these two points, I have made some tweaks and included the info in the article as well.

Looks good.

That's all from me. A fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, I have made changes as outlined above. Welcome additional feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I will promote it now, but leave it on my watch list and go through it again over the next few days. I will post any thoughts re improvements for ACR or FAC on the talk page. You are doing a fine job of running through these British divisions. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

In general, the dropping of the definite article before Arabic ordinals is a "military-speak" contraction and not grammatically correct. Suggest adding it in throughout. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: That's my issue, so I'll put them back in. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for thatEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)