Talk:80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• No DABs, external links good.
• Images appropriately licensed.
• Once fully trained, the recruits were allocated to formations fighting overseas. Notably, the formation was used as a source of reinforcements for the 21st Army Group, which was fighting in Normandy. Repetitious, change one of the "formation"s.

 Done

• After all available British army troops left the United Kingdom for France Redundant, already know that they're British army troops.

 Done

• Clarify that the phantom division was created upon the disbandment of the original.

 Done

• This is a short article, no link on first use, so delete the link for British Army in the first para of the lede.

 Done

• On 30 June 1944, the 48th, 76th, 77th Holding and the 80th training divisions Why are you calling the 77th a Holding Division? And not capitalizing training division since it's a (collective) proper noun? Suggest that you simply refer to them as the four training divisions.

   DoneThe 77th changed names and roles in either 43 or 44, although from an outside perspective i can see why that would raise eyebrows. I have amended the article per your comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Which number is Hart referring to, the 1100 eligible to go overseas or all 22,000-odd?

  Amended sentence, does this clarify?

  • Not really.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

    What exactly is unclear? The four divisions had a combined total of just over 22,000 men. Of these 22,000 men, only 1,100 were available on 6 June to be deployed as reinforcements. Most of the rest were deployed over the coming six months.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

    • Maybe I'm overthinking this, but does "the rest" apply to the 1,100 or the young, the old and the unfit, i.e., the total in the divisions? If they're ineligible to go overseas in June, I don't see that changing over the next six months unless the Army changed its standards in the meantime.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

      Based off Hart's comments, the only change was these men became fit for overseas and completed their training. I have amended the article, and attempted to clarify what group of people we are talking about.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'd suggest moving the use of the defunct division right to the beginning of that section and then explain the context. Otherwise, the reader is kinda left to wonder what the connection is between them.

 Done I have restructured the section per your comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• You mention Barbier, but reference Buckley, which is correct. If Buckley is quoting her, say so lest a reader think that you missed providing a reference.

  Buckley is the editor of a collection of essays, and also the contributor to one (although not the one in question). Barbier provides an essay on Fortitude. I was looking through some of the guides on how to format references, I currently do not see anything relevant. Can you point out the correct format for this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Here's an example of the coding for a chapter in an anthology. {{cite book|last=Inaba|first=Chiharu|editor=Phillips Payson O'Brien|title=The Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1902–1922|year=2004|publisher=RoutledgeCurzon|location=London and New York|isbn=0-415-32611-7|chapter=Military Co-operation Under the First Anglo-Japanese Alliance|pages=64–81}}--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

     DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Use en-dashes for page ranges in Buckley.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Thanks for the review, any further comments please let me know.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise looking good.