Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom)

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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom)

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

The 80th Infantry (Reserve) Division is an overlooked training formation that remained within the United Kingdom throughout its existence during the Second World War. Very few sources talk about this division, or its sibling training formations. The article has just passed its GA review. All comments are welcomed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I had a look at this during the peer review and not a lot stood out to me. Great work, as usual. I have a couple of minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cox's full name was Lionel Howard Cox if you want to use this: [1]
I had forgot about that website! I could not find that chaps name anywhere, so thank you. Just a pity that his full name does not bring up any photos on the IWM website to use.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- this sentence seemed a little awkward to me: "The notional Fourth Army's VII Corps, which after being transferred south to FUSAG, included the newly created fictitious 80th Infantry Division"
Had a little play with the sentence, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- is there a citation that could be added for "footnote a"?
Added.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- irregular capitalization: "General officer Commanding"; this should probably be "General Officer Commanding", or "General officer commanding" (I'd probably go with the first one)
Meant to address this a while ago, and forgot!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- in the References, some works have locations of publication, but others don't. For FAC, this will need to be consistent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate for the support and comments. I have also addressed your concern regards the location of publication.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

" keep German garrison": ?
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank. I have inserted the missing word, to complete the sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

You don't need both an oclc and isbn in one source, you just need one of them.Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 12:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That source uses a template. I have updated the template to remove the OCLC reference.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support
- No dab links (no action req'd).
- No issues with external links (no action req'd).
- A few of the images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR req, suggestion only).

As you note, it is not a requirement, but I will try and sort this out soon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- No duplicate links (no action req'd).
- Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
- Captions look fine (no action req'd).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
- "Major-General Cox took command..." should just be "Cox took command..." removing rank at second use per WP:SURNAME

Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Is the typo in the quote here in the source or accidental - "preconceived notion of what FORTUTUDE would accomplish." - (should be "FORTITUDE" shouldn't it?)

Quite right! I have just checked the source, it is indeed a typo on my behalf and is now fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Otherwise looks very good to me. The deception aspect was particularly interesting. Anotherclown (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review and comments. I, likewise, found the deception aspect of these forgotten training divisions to be very interesting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

The lead image probably counts as a derivative of the original patch - I'd assume that it would count as a work of the UK government.

Ideally then, the patch images should all be updated to include information akin to this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3rd_US_Armored_Division_SSI.png ?

Yes, I'd think so.

I shall sort this out then :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source used for the Fortitude map? FAC reviewers will probably ask you for one. Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be honest and admit, until you said that I never looked at the file details. If one was to dig up sources that supported the image, and added them to its page, would that satisfy future FAC reviewers?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, though you could also ask User:ErrantX what he used, since he created the map. Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message for him on his talkpage, although i note he has not been actively recently. I will bare this in mind before taking the article further, and if necessary will attempt to source the image myself.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right; I am trying to work out the best way to source this. Basically; using all of my sources on the Bodyguard plan I put together the map. Sourcing all of that info would be rather laborious (but, possible - mostly by checing out all of the relevant ops. article pages and selecting a relevant source). There is a similar map here which is not explicitly my source, but it handly encompasess all of the data. But it's maybe not the most reliable source (although it does cite sources on page 2). --Errant ^(chat!) 20:11, 8 July 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.