Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/55th (West Lancashire) Division

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

55th (West Lancashire) Division

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

55th (West Lancashire) Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 55th (West Lancashire) Division was a British Territorial Force division formed in 1908. During the First World War, it fought at the Somme, Passchendaele, Cambrai, and Givenchy. The latter two being particular highlights for different reasons. A court of enquiry was formed due to the division's actions in the former, while its defense of the latter was lauded. At the end of the war, the division was disbanded. It was reformed in 1920, with that history contained in another article. This article previously passed its GAN, and was given the once over by the GOCE. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, I have a few minor comments; sorry, I'm not really at my best WRT reviewing these days: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Will start looking at this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox
  • the lead doesn't reflect the body in terms of the order in which events happened after the outbreak of war, ie the 2nd West Lancashire Division wasn't formed "eventually" after the division was broken up, it was formed within a month of the outbreak of war. The West Lancashire Division was also briefly disbanded in 1915, which should be in the lead. Can you re-look at all this chronologically and rewrite that part of the lead to properly summarise the body?
  • "broken-up through 1914 and 1915, as entire units were dispatched overseas"→"broken up during 1914 and 1915 as its units were dispatched piecemeal to the Western Front" unless they went elsewhere?
  • "was reassigned the units that had been transferred" is vague. Do you mean its original units?
  • "and the Menin Road Ridge"
  • "a major German counterattack"
  • say how many of the division were killed as well
  • the divisional insignia is cited in the body, so doesn't need a citation. Can you put the cited motto in the infobox into the body as well, perhaps in a retitled "Battle insignia and motto" section, and drop the cite in the infobox?
Body
  • I'll wait for the lead and infobox comments to be addressed before I have a crack at the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the opening remarks and suggestions. I have attempted to implement the changes that you recommended to the lede and infobox. I have not created/renamed the insignia section. Rather, I have mentioned the motto just after where the insignia is cited in the body of the article. Per the source, the insignia inspired the poem, and the motto was adopted from the poem. Extra credit: I have added a link to an article that includes the poem.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good thus far, with the above minor comments. Will crack on with the body now.
Body
  • link division (military) at first mention
  • "it would take the TF divisions"
  • link brigade at first mention
  • for field training link Field training exercise (I know it is rag order, but no doubt it will one day improve and no longer be so US-focussed
  • for field artillery link Royal Field Artillery
  • I thought that practise was the verb in BritEng, and practice was the noun?
  • there is a tension between the TF divisions being described as a way to expand the British expeditionary forces and the TF mandate of repelling an invasion (and then later that they were slated to go to Ireland). Is there anything definitive about government policy regarding the employment of the TF during the pre-war period?
    I dont have many sources for that period, but I will take another look to see if there is something else to add.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to First World War, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "every unit in the division volunteered" seems out of place, because we don't yet know what that entailed. I assume that he means that every unit exceeded the percentage Kitchener had laid down. If so, which one? 60 or 80%? Perhaps this quote should go after the sentence explaining what "volunteering" meant in a unit sense?
    I have made the change suggested, and removed a little duplication. Copp does not elaborate on the volunteering.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "the all-volunteer West Lancashire Division" at the beginning of the para?
  • "The rest of the West Lancashire Division was then amalgamated into the 2nd West Lancashire Division"
  • the reformation of the division as the 55th (West Lancashire) Division isn't very clear. When the Army Council authorised the reformation of the division, was it as the West Lancashire Division or as the 55th (West Lancashire) Division? If the former, when was the name change authorised?
    It was as the latter, does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it would be helpful to explain that the 164th Brigade was the former North Lancashire Brigade, etc. Something along the lines of "...under establishment. The division's previous brigades had been numbered, and were now the 164th (North Lancashire) Brigade, 165th (Liverpool) Brigade, and 166th (South Lancashire) Brigade. By the end of March..."
    I have reworded several parts of this para. The 164th Brigade HQ was deployed to France, whereas the other two were broken-up and then reformed on 3 Jan.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
respectfully→respectively. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the note is about casualties per month, can I suggest "During its five months in the trenches, the division suffered 1,110 casualties, more than twice the average casualty rate for British infantry battalions in the First World War." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Battle of the Somme. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "In August, the division made three unsuccessful assaults on the Germans positions, suffering 4,126 casualties." how many dead?
    I have updated the sentence per the recommendation. The casualty figure is sourced to Miles, which I do not have access to.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The division next saw action on 25 September, when it attacked north-west of Gueudecourt as part of the Battle of Morval, a general offensive launched by the Fourth Army."
  • there is a bit of a gap between the end of 1916 and June 1917, what was the division doing, how many casualties did it suffer etc?
    Copp's coverage is limited to a single para: a "quiet sector", two periods of rest, which ended when "the Division being thoroughly rested and re-equipped, things commenced to wake up and a certain liveliness began. This liveliness continued with ever growing intensity until the end of July..." No record of casualties sustained in this period.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "By July, the division was part of the Fifth Army. It participated in the initial assaults of the Battle of Pilckem Ridge, which formed part of the larger Third Battle of Ypres (also known as the Battle of Passchendaele)"
  • "German first- and second-line trenches"
  • "had captured the third-line trenches"
  • suggest adding the battalion or unit of the VC recipients throughout the article
  • 3,552 casualties - how many killed?
    No mention of the number killed in the sourceEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig"
  • "they had sawseen tape"
  • "launched a failedan unsuccessful counter-attack"
  • divisional casualties amounted to 2,730, how many killed?
    Source does not provide a breakdownEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "final role in the Third Battle of Ypres."

Down to Battle of Cambrai. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the further feedback. I have made the changes that you have suggested, and sprinkled a few comments in above to specific points or questions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "On 18 November the division suffered from a trench raid,[66] during which 40 members of the division were captured.[67]"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • given the plan didn't necessarily work out, suggest "It was decided that the 164th Brigade would assault two German strongpoints..."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "counter-attacking forces"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the Cambrai counterattack section, a hyphen is needed to be consistent with the rest of the article
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • also in this section, mention the 164th Brigade was in reserve when you give the front line allocations?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the division's left" do you mean in the left flanking formation, or in the 166th Brigade's sector?
    I have made a slight change to the wording here, the brigade was holding the left hand sector assigned to the division. Does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that had fellfallen back"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2,000 yards (1,800 m) and 4,000 yards (3,700 m)"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lieutenant-General Sir Thomas Snow, GOC VII Corps, wrote..."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • who or what is Bryn Hammond? historian?
    He is, I have added thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "men from the West Lancashire55th Division"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • no mention in the court of inquiry of the ridiculous frontage of the division and holding it with posts rather than trenches? Seems to me that the lack of defence in depth was directly related to the length of frontline that had to be held and the way it was held. A farcical "inquiry" if it didn't look at that...
    So, personally, the more I read about it, the more I come to the conclusion that it was a farce and it pointed the figure were it didn't belong. Re-reading McCartney and Travers, they don't appear to provide more than what is already in the article. Moore provides more information on the court of inquiry, which looked at several divisions, and he also mentions Haig's opinion. It seems Haig was of the opinion that the division's were to blame. The court does seem to suggest frontage mattered. It highlighted that surprise resulted in the 12th and 20th Div's frontlines being overrun, and concedes that intel suggested the 55th wouldnt be hit? When it was, the primary cause for the failure to hold the Germans back or do better was due to the div's boundary lines, a lack of defense in depth, and a lack of training. General Maxse summarized his findings in an appendix stating the High Command knew the attack was coming, the div's ignored the warnings, and the infantry were not trained enough to hold off the Germans.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have checked down to here, made a couple of minor tweaks. Should finish this off in the next 24 hours. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Early 1918. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • did the VII Corps move to First Army with the division, or the division only? If the latter, to which corps?
  • and Royal Engineers (RE)
  • make it clearer that the reduction in battalions meant each brigade was reduced to three battalions
  • comma after "reorganisation of the front line"
  • where was the 166th Brigade in the Givenchy–Festubert defences?
  • "used the greatest concentration of guns to that point" of what? the Spring Offensive or the war?
  • suggest "18th Reserve Divisions"
  • split the para at "At 09:50, the Germans" as this is the second part of the attack, not a continuation of the attack on the 164th Brigade
  • did the 166th actually move to reinforce the Portuguese, or did they discover they had gone before they moved and stayed put?
  • another para split at "During the morning, the 166th Brigade"
  • "dispatched troops to the other two brigades" if that is correct?
  • "defensive positions on the left flank of the 165th Brigade"
  • where in the divisional defensive layout was the 154th Brigade deployed? In depth behind which brigade? The 166th?
  • "supplemented by and intense artillery barrage"
  • "was repulsed followingby counter-attacks" if that is right?
  • move the link to the 1st Division up to first mention
  • "After his experience at Ypres, Jeudwine had contributed"
  • "the division "could be said..." or "Jeudwine had contributed"
  • "prisoners and deserters stated an attack would occur"?
  • "the result of Spanish flu spreading among the Germans."
  • "After several weeks of relaxedlimited action"
  • I Corps is mentioned. Is this the answer to my earlier question? If so, link at first mention

Down to Advance into Belgium. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFAIK, it should be "a practice that continued" given practice is being used a noun rather than a verb here, meaning a "custom or habit"
  • suggest "The Germans were had entrenched on the east side of the canal, supported by a large number of machine-guns."
  • low-ground→low ground
  • "several pillboxes the railway embankment" near, on?
  • "were still occupiedying the positions"
  • suggest "By the end of the next day, the division was close to the Belgian border, which it crossed on 20 October. Later that day, it captured..." to avoid the repetition of border...border
  • there is a village/locality called Froidmont near Tournai [1], could Froidmon be a typo?
  • a bit of assumed knowledge regarding George V, it is marginal, but a non-Commonwealth reader might wonder who George V was, specifically if he was the Belgian king given the division was in Belgium at the time. Maybe "The British King, George V,"
  • drop the comma after "horseback" in the caption
  • suggest "For acts of valour, eleven individuals earned the VC (in some cases posthumously), with Chavasse earning a bar for a second award."
  • "the division had the following awards bestowed on its members (in several cases, multiple times):"
  • "the division's comrades' association" or use the formal title of the association in title case
  • I was surprised to see that Clement Atlee's service in the division is only mentioned in See also. I would insert a sentence at the end of the second para of the Local attacks in the Givenchy sector section. Along the lines of "Also in June, Major Clement Attlee, who was later British Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951, joined 1/5SL, having previously served at Gallipoli and in Mesopotamia." Source: [2] pp. 149–151

You will be relieved to learn that is all I have. I have made a couple of suggestions in areas you have already addressed, so just check those as well as those immediately above, and ping me when you're done? Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the extensive review, comments, and suggestions. I have attempted to address all the points you have brought up. Ill let you take a look at the diffs, and await further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where are we with this, Peacemaker67?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suddenly very busy in RW, but will look over the responses tomorrow and confirm expected support. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Made a couple of minor typo and grammar fixes, but this is good to go. You haven't addressed my comment about Atlee, but that doesn't hold up my support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, comments, and fixes. Regarding Attlee, please see the end of the first paragraph of the Local attacks in the Givenchy sector section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

edit

Article looks very good to me. Some minor bits:

  • "lodgement" is misspelt. Consider linking to lodgement
    Updated and linked, thanks for the catch!
  • The Footnotes section is empty; consider removing it
    Removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The division was unusual in extending battle patches to the engineers and artillery units However, this was the case throughout the AIF.
    I have changed the wording here to indicate British formations.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The division was comprised of three infantry comprised Consider re-phrasing
    Eak! I have reworded.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see the value of abbreviating "yards". (In the period, it was abbreviated as 2,500x.)
    Updated the template to turn off abbreviating.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit
  • Many hyphens in the page ranges need changing to en dashes.
  • Watson comes before Who.
  • Similar with Brookshire.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those catches, I believe I have been able to correct all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2021 (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/55th_(West_Lancashire)_Division&oldid=1008280046"