Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2021 [1].

2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

[edit]
Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd Armoured Division was formed in 1939 in the UK, and was built up over the course of 1940. While at home, it was assigned to a counter-attack role to any potential invasion of the UK. It then departed for Egypt, and had a substantial portion of its forces reassigned after arrival. The remnant of the division drove across land to Libya, suffering numerous mechanical breakdowns en-route. Shortly after establishing a presence on the frontline, Erwin Rommel launched his first offensive in Africa. This swept Allied forces from Libya, with the exception of Tobruk, and back into Egypt destroying the division in the process. Due to logistical, mechanical, and command difficulties, the historical consensus is that the division stood little chance to stop Rommel. The article has previously been worked on by the GOCE, and has passed its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

image review

[edit]
Is this - File:AfricaMap2.jpg - of any use? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Map Workshop was not able to assist over the last few weeks, so I have removed that request. The map that Gog indicate, I have updated and used.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

I reviewed this at GA and believe that it meets the Featured Article standards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Hi EnigmaMcmxc, as I have reviewed and contributed to "your" articles before, I intend to simply make many of the changes which I would normally laboriously write out as suggestions. But if there is anything you don't like or don't understand feel entirely free to revert and post the diff for discussion. If you would prefer a more "traditional" style of review, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the division was deprived of forces for a short while". I am not entirely sure what you mean by "forces". Sub units?
    Yes, and I have made a tweakEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forced to make do with leftovers". Is there a more encyclopedic way of phrasing this?
    Tweaks have been made, do they work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division arrived in Egypt in December 1940 and was stripped to support Operation Lustre, an expeditionary force to Greece. The rest of the division moved". Possibly a little more detail here of which sub units were transferred to what?
    I have made changes, do these work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that the quote commencing "'tank-heavy' … with too few ...", being well over 40 words (54),should be in a block quote.
  • "According to French, this thinking predominated". Which? You have just listed two.
  • "in the Panzerwaffe (Tank Arm)". 1. Why use a foreign language phrase? 2. Suggest dropping this phrase, the "German counterparts" of the "the British armoured formations" hardly seems to need explanation.
  • "The issue was broached a month later". Do you mean 'broached again'?
  • "Following the outbreak of the war". As this is its first mention I would suggest stating when it started, and perhaps even naming it.
  • "the 1st Light Armoured Brigade comprised four armoured regiments". But you then list three.
  • "The division had 77 Vickers light tanks". Between the seven brigades? So the Heavy and Light Brigades were similarly equipped?
  • "the 2nd Armoured Division had to make do with what remained." Do the sources give any further detail on this?
    Evans is used to source the political embarrassment part of those sentences. I do not have access to Hughes, Broshot & Philson, and this was a left-over the prior version of the article prior to my expansion of it. Based off the existing wording and other sourced context, I have reworded.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the division had 17 new Cruiser tanks". Optional: explain what a cruiser tank is.
  • "the 102nd (Northumberland Hussars) converted to being solely an anti-tank unit." Does "soley" add anything?
  • "had the strength of a brigade group". Perhaps give an idea in line of how this compared with a division, for the uninitiated?
  • "had to rely on overland routes from Tobruk". Possibly give an idea of how far this was in miles?
  • "Once operations got underway, Neame also predicted the 2nd Armoured Division's tank numbers would rapidly dwindle due to breakdowns." Should this be 'Neame also predicted that once operations got underway, the 2nd Armoured Division's tank numbers would rapidly dwindle due to breakdowns'?
  • "The British underestimated the scope of Axis reinforcements". What does "scope" mean? Size?
  • "and preparations closing in on El Agheila". How can preparations close in?
  • The "March" section has a map - which is not up to FA standard - which seems to lack a caption/key.
  • "at least eight tanks in return". Is it not known how many tanks were claimed?
    Jentz quotes British and German records at length. This particular sentence is sourced to the British after action report that stated "The ranges given by Tank Commanders in their fire orders varied from 900 to 1500 yards, and at least 8 enemy tanks are claimed to have been put out of action by our surviving gunners." Jentz indicates that the German records only show three tanks knocked out, and an unknown number damaged.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several instances where the accuracy of conversions seems to me to be spurious. Eg "900–1,500 yards (820–1,370 metres)" or "2 miles (3.2 kilometres)".
    I am not sure if I am following here. The miles to km appears to be the correct calculation: roughly mi/5 then *8. As for the yards, the convert template appears to have rounded slightly. I have added an extra component of the template to remove the default rounding, which brings the figures to 900–1,500 yards (823–1,372 metres) instead. I have added this same part to most of the other templates to provide more accuracy for the mi-km conversion, epeically over larger distances.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These figures exclude 6RTR, who had abandoned all of their M13s". 1. It should be the 6RTR. 2. If 6RTR had abandoned all of its tanks, why does the total exclude them?
  • "and omitted the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade" I am not sure what "omitted" means in this context?
  • "Following the new instructions". Should "the" be deleted?
  • "the main coastal road". "main" suggests another (non-main) road. If there wasn't one, "main" isn't necessary.

I have got as far as the start of "Demise" and am going to pause. See what you think of the copy edits and the above and I will have another look. My thoughts at the moment, which are subject to change, is that this is a basically solid article which isn't quite there yet. Specifically:

  • The prose is choppy, sometimes unclear, and tends to change tense. (I was surprised, just, to discover that it had gone through GoCE; I was going to recommend that.)
  • It needs a map showing just the relevant area of Libya with all, or nearly all, of hte places mentioned in the text on.
  • Most of "Axis offensive" is, to my mind, written in too much detail. It could do with boiling down to 50-70% of the current wordage.
  • There are little inconsistencies - eg, every unit name should have "the" in front of it - and occasional words or phrases which seem unclear.

So I am currently leaning oppose. Nothing which can't be fixed, but possibly not during this FAC nomination. But let's see if I can be pleasantly surprised. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and review. I have started working on the points that you have raised. I will take a longer in-depth look through the article too to tweak out some of the minor inconsistencies that you pointed out. Would you suggest another GoCE pass, in addition?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am plodding my way through the article. Lets revisit in a day or two :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest doing what you are doing. Work through my points, where you agree check to see if they apply more generally. Trawl through the article with the more general points I made in mind, and see if any others spring out at you. Once that is done, and it is a job and a half, I'll have another proper read through and let you know what I think. Does that work for you? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked through the article, copyedited for tense, consistency, and to cut out the fluff. I have also attempted to address the various points that you raised above, at the same time. I have also left a few comments for specifics.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Demise onwards
  • "and both were refused" → 'and both demands were refused'.
  • Was "Cyrenaica Command" the formal and official title?
  • "He was informed that the rest of his division nor any other force" → 'He was informed that neither the rest of his division nor any other force'.
  • "and supplemented by infantry". Perhaps 'supported' rather than "supplemented".
  • "Demise": IMO the second paragraph is unnecessarily detailed.


  • "at what great risk and cost had these tanks been shipped across the seas from England to the Middle East! Churchill's courage, energy and determination in sending munitions to Wavell had been frustrated because others failed to ensure that the equipment sent was at least battle-worthy". Being over 40 words, this should probably be a block quote.
  • "this division had not, in fact, had an opportunity for adequate training as a team. It was a collection of units, three of which had only joined shortly before the action, rather than a trained formation. The breakdown in control and administration was largely due to this fact". Similarly.
  • Noting the further quotes in this section, can I point out MOS:QUOTE: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
  • "the disaster that overtook [the division] was in part caused by the fact that it had no railhead and could not be provided with sufficient motor transport to enable it to build up a sufficient reserve of supplies some 350 miles (563 km) from the nearest base" - block quote.
  • "350 miles (563 km)". Seems false precision to me.
  • "(Died on 5 January 1941)"; "(captured, 8 April 1941)": one starts with an upper case, the other doesn't; inconsistent style (either would be acceptable).
  • Note e: add "tanks to the end.
  • There are several hyphens in page ranges where there should be en dashes.
  • Where more than one page is cited, use 'pp.', not "p".
  • Playfair 2004a and 2004b both lack publisher locations.

I am afraid that I am leaning oppose more than ever. The lack of interest from other reviewers may mean that I do not have to formally declare, but IMO this still needs attention to some basic details, a copy edit, a (further) serious trim, and several quotations largely or wholly rendered in Wikipedia's voice. None of these are individually fatal, but together they start to indicate a nomination not quite ready. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand if this will fail this time around, and greatly appreciate the above comments and your overall opinion. I will, in the coming days, on the points that you have raised. When my current C/E request gets worked, I will put this article up for another FAN c/e pass (although that may be some time, and this will potentially fail in the meantime).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are waiting for a GoCE Requests slot, you are allowed to have two up at a time, so if that is the case I would suggest withdrawing this, putting in a GoCE request, perhaps flagging up the diff of my summary comment above[?] and getting on with what other work you can do on it yourself. When you re-nominate, I would be happy to have another look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. I have entered a GOCE request to have the article worked on. I have looked through the FAN page, but I am failing to see how to withdrawn this request. I feel like I have done that before, but I am failing to see how at the moment. Is it possible to assist in withdrawing this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You ask the coordinators. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2nd_Armoured_Division_(United_Kingdom)/archive1&oldid=1000409084"