Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/23rd (Northumbrian) Division/archive1

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) 30 September 2019 [1].

23rd (Northumbrian) Division

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British 23rd (Northumbrian) Division, which was raised during the Second World War. This was a second-line formation that was sent to France, during 1940, to provide unskilled labour for rear-area duties and it was promised that they would not to see combat. Once the Germans broke through the Ardennes and crossed the Meuse, the unprepared division was thrown onto the frontline and subsequently mauled. Evacuated at Dunkirk, it returned to the UK where it was broken up as part of a restructuring of the British Army. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have little to add:

after introducing it as the British Army, stick with that capitalisation throughout
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
instead of linking the countries in the lead, suggest linking Battle of Belgium and Battle of the Netherlands, as you've done in the body
Links tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"With no other reserves available"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"conducted delaying actions and rearguards"→"conducted delaying and rearguard actions" and link rearguard
switched up and link added
"to increase the part-time Territorial Army"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"created as a second line unit"→"created as a second line formation"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"34,500 militiamen" does this mean that these men were already serving in the TA? Or should it just say "34,500 men"?
These were the first men to be conscripted, civilians brought into the regular army for a period of six months per the Military Training Act 1939. The intention was for them to go into the reserve and civilian life after their six months, but war broke out and they were turned over to the expanding TA. The term militiamen being used to describe those conscripted and to distinguish them from regulars.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would just drop militiamen, it is adding an undefined term, doesn't help in understanding/is potentially confusing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Term droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
link Second World War at first mention in the body
link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the 6th and 7th Battalions, Green Howards; and the"
missing word addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear enough, I meant add "and" after the semi-colon. And drop the "the" you added in front of 7th. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"to reinforce the regular army units"→"to reinforce the regular army formations"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"being so transferred at a time" seems odd, why would they be transferred at the same time, when they were to be transferred when ready?
Per Gibbs, the plan was to deploy TA divisions (as whole formations, and not being broken up) as they completed their training and were assigned equipment along the following timeline assuming no issues arose:

The regular army deployed within 6 weeks; 10 TA divisions sent in three waves in the 4th, 5th, and 6th months of the war; the remaining 16 TA divisions sent in two waves in the 9th and 12th month.

Any suggestions on ironing out the sentences on this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way it is currently worded is potentially confusing, suggest just tell us how many TA divisions were supposed to be transferred in twelve months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked the article per your comment, does this work?
Perfect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"and the Army had estimated"→"and the army had estimated"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"thereby alleviating the strain on the logistical units" this doesn't follow, adding more men to the BEF would put more strain on the loggies, perhaps the strain on the existing engineers and pioneers?
I have tweaked the sentence along the point you have made, which is what the sources are stating.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This worries me a bit, I can't see how adding more men would reduce strain on the various logistical corps, it would increase the strain if they didn't bring their own logistical units. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ill re-hit the books tomorrow, and try to iron this one out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delays, and quite right: the sources are only talking about the strain on the pool of pioneers and workers, not the logistical side of things. I have edited the sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"General Sir John Gort"
Added full name and titleEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"under the watch of the Luftwaffe"→" under the constant threat from the Luftwaffe"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. Shouldn't that be either 'under the constant threat of the Luftwaffe' or 'under a constant threat from the Luftwaffe'?

Much better... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few follow-up comments to address. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good now, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

Placeholder. Give me a ping once you have actioned PM's comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assessed this at ACR. Quite a bit has been done to the article since then. All of which has improved it. All I have is the trivia below.

"To boost morale, provide additional labour and guards for the rear echelon of the BEF and score political points with the French Government and military" Suggest a comma after BEF to avoid possible confusion over using "and" twice.
addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the only defensible position to stop the German attempt" Suggest 'the only defensible position at which to stop the German attempt'.
addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"creating new units based around an initial cadre of just 25 officers and men" Could we replace "units" with either 'battalions' or brigades' as appropriate? I am assuming that one of them is.
I have tweaked the entire sentence, and addressed your specific concern.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The process varied widely in the TA divisions" Optional: "in" → 'between'. Or 'among' or some other word of your choice.
addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"this was an overly optimistic review of the intent" I am not sure about "intent"; would 'situation', or similar, not be better?
I am going to await feedback from Nikki before relooking at this one.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"it required all divisional transport" Possibly 'it required all of the divisional transport'?
addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: I did a little spotchecking as I went, and it was fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A splendid article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spotchecks not done

Battistelli ISBN seems to correspond to a different edition
Should be addressed nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Collier has the origyear and year reversed
addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does the Jones source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
Briefly, for the moment, it is a completed doctoral thesis, which can be used. It has not been used as a primary source, it largely been used for the author's analysis in a largely neglected area.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any indication this analysis has entered mainstream academic discourse? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, at present no secondary source is quoting Jones. His commentary on the state of the territorial training level is on par with other sources, just more specific to the topic at hand; i.e. French (2001) talks about this in more general terms, and Smalley (2015) talks about this with specific regards to the 12th Division. Numerous sources discuss the BEF manpower shortage in regards to engineers and pioneers etc. Jones - so far - appears to be the only one who outright states the arrival of the three divisions did little to rectify the situation. His is an analysis of a primary source, which I cannot locate other sources discussing or quoting. The issue is one that most other sources glance over.

With that said, your thoughts? Removal of extensive quoting, or removal of all material from this source?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, "contains analysis not found elsewhere" is not a synonym for "reliable source". I'd suggest minimizing the extent to which this source is relied upon. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented out the quote from Jones, and left a note that it can be reinserted at a latter date once it meets WP:RS. I have also made a few edits to reduce the reliance on the source. Do you believe further efforts need to be made at present?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hey, just following up on this, do you feel like more material needs to be removed or will this pass mustard? :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing still an issue for me is the Drewienkiewicz quote cited to this source - is it attributed to an original source in Jones? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a fair point. I have attempted, without success, to get access to Drewienkiewicz's actual work. The page referenced is a mixture of Jones' argument, partial Drewienkiewicz quotes, and paraphrasing. I have removed it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't include rank for Joslen
I have updated the template, so should no show with no rankEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Takle is missing location.Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Location addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

after the re-emergence of Germany as a European power and its Pipe Germany to Nazi Germany.
linkedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
would remain in the United Kingdom to complete training Unlink UK because of common term.
link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
before being deployed to France within twelve months Same as above with France.
link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boys anti tank rifles, and a few two-inch mortars No metric units and anti tank needs an hyphen.
amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
best French armies and their strategic reserve moved forward to assist the Belgian and Dutch armies Unlink current countries.
links removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
French reserves prompted Général Alphonse Joseph Georges Italicise "Général" here.
amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
was sent to Haeghe-Muelen, 8 miles (13 km) southeast of Dunkirk American southeast.
switched upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
little preparation for war was seen as a hindrance You mean were?
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First line territorial formations would create a second First line needs any hyphen.
I understand the logic for them. Joslen does not use them when detailing the first and second lines. I have, however, gone and added them in.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of second lines without hyphens shouldn't they have hyphens?
dittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
free up first line formations for training Again first line needs an hyphen.
dittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and a two-brigade motor-division's war-establishment We do not need an hyphen between motor-division.
removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
heavy flanking machine gun fire Machine gun needs an hyphen.
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the battalion were unable to stop two German tanks You mean was?
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
with cannon and machine gun fire Merge gun fire.
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, I have made the changes you have suggested. I have also left a comment above, about the first and second line changes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

Image review? --Laser brain (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:10May 16May Battle of Belgium.PNG: Image link broken.
File:16May-21May Battle of Belgium.PNG: Ditto.

The original links no longer work, yes. They both, however, have archive links.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All images seem well placed and ALT text seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @Laser brain:: Just trying to stay on top of this. The original website links are long dead. Each commons page though, has archive links to the original source. Are these suitable, or should the maps be removed from the article? Other than that, are there any other issues that need to be addressed? Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That the links are archived isn't really a problem, but the fact that the links point directly to the file is. One can't verify a license that way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Makes perfect sense now, I have commented out as I am not familiar enough with how the way back machine works to get additional information on the maps in order to support the license.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, with that said. I did some playing around and was able to access the following parts of the archive website. At this point, it would be a case of advise from you guys on how to proceed:

Atlas main page

European list of maps

Atlas source page (If I am not mistaken, the sources are all from the "West Point" series.)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @Laser brain:: Just another follow-up, to avoid this review stagnating and no promotion being made ;) Can you advise on how to proceed from here? With the above links, are the maps okay to use? Do we insert these links onto the commons pages? Or should the maps just be commented out? Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure myself, either; requesting a second opinion from @Nikkimaria: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page claims that both maps are the product of either USMA or USDPA, meaning the licensing is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @Nikkimaria:, thank you Nikkimaria for the links and comment on licensing. I have tweaked the Commons page to link to archive pages for the original map and atlas source page, and also included the current active links (which I failed to find when previously looking!). I hope this resolves this issue?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.