Wikipedia:Peer review/70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)/archive1

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi, this article has been completely overhauled in the last few months. Requesting feedback before taking the article to GA review. All comments welcome. Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Enigma, good to see you. I have a few copyediting comments.
"The 70th Infantry Division was an infantry division of the British Army, which fought during": See WP:REDUNDANCY, part of LEAD. I recommend: "The 70th Infantry Division of the British Army fought during"
Done
"It was formed on 10 October 1941, via the renaming": I think "formed" is going to suggest to many readers that something happened other than changing names; even for those who get "via the renaming", there's a garden path here. This suggests that we're talking about a renaming: "On 10 October, for security reasons and in an attempt to confuse Axis intelligence when the division was fully redeployed, the 6th Infantry Division was renamed the 70th Infantry Division".
I have done some rewording, although i am not sure if it is any better to be honest!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"would continue post-war": would continue after the war
Done
" the Australians inducted their British reliefs on life in the fortress.": "reliefs" seems jargony to me, and isn't listed at for instance Cambridge Dictionaries. "inducted ... on" is a rare usage.
Attempted to address.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Besieged, life was uncomfortable": Some say that "Besieged, their life was uncomfortable" doesn't fix the dangling modifier, because it's not "their" that's besieged", it's "they", but I side with those who say it does fix it, with a minimum of fuss. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Went with a something a little different, does that work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the apostrophe over one letter. It looks fine. - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank for the comments. I will get to work on this soon, probably tomorrow. Regards.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: looks quite good to me, well done. I have a couple of minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, "The author of the British Official history, as well as William Slim…" -->I’d suggest identifying the author by name here…
Done
Capitalisation: "2/13th battalion" should probably be changed to "2/13th Battalion" as it is a proper noun, same for 2/15th etc
Done
Capitalisation: "burden on Henry Wilson, General officer commanding British Troops in Egypt" --> "burden on Henry Wilson, General Officer Commanding British Troops in Egypt" as it appears to be a title in this case
Done
Capitalisation: "corps commander, lieutenant-general William Slim…" this should probably be changed to "corps commander, Lieutenant-General William Slim" because the rank is being used as a title here
Done
Capitalisation: “Wingate (now a Major-General) was…” this should probably be changed to "Wingate (now a major-general) was…" as it is not being used as a title here per WP:MILTERMS. * good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done

Thanks for the comments guys. I have made the adjustments as indicated, or at least attempted to in some places.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]