Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/23rd (Northumbrian) Division

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

23rd (Northumbrian) Division

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

23rd (Northumbrian) Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 23rd (Northumbrian) Division was a British Army division of the Second World War. Barely trained, the division was sent to France in 1940 as unskilled labours and with a promise of not being used a combat formation. When the German advance through the Ardennes split the Allied armies, the division was put on the frontline. With no realistic hope of stopping the Germans, the division did its best and got mauled in the process. It escaped via Dunkirk, and after it's return home was broken up to reinforce other units. The article has recently been overhauled and greatly expanded, was given a copyedit by the GOCE, and has just past its GA review. I believe it is ready for it's A-Class.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in good shape. I did have a quick look at this during peer review, but have a few comments:

Lead
Body

Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, comments, and review. I have made several changes to per a number of your suggestions. I will endeavor to address the remainder tomorrow.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on the remaining issues you brought up, I hope this addresses everything?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. I tweaked a couple of typos and links. Also the sources look of high quality and reliable. In the Refs, there is a missing cap in Rissik's "Durham Light iInfantry". Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

[edit]
@Nikkimaria: Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "the re-emergence of Germany" My usual comment, to which I expect you will respond with your usual amendment.
    An unfortunate slip considering the various changes I made to this based off our previous work.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and moved to surround the British and French forces in northern France" Suggest "surround" → 'cut off'.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and came to the Munich Agreement, the German annexation of Sudetenland" Reads a little clunkily. Maybe 'and came to the Munich Agreement, which accepted that the Germans would annex the Sudetenland' or similar?
    RewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Second Line" → 'second line'. Similarly with "First Line".
    Capitals droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from small cadres" Consider removing "small" as this seems implicit in "cadres". Link cadre.
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sources differ on the background indicating it was either blue or green" is a little unclear to me. Perhaps 'Sources differ on whether the background was blue or green'?
    Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Those who remained were issued with rifles and other essentials." Just checking that for the first five months of its existence the division was so unmilitary a formation that its infantry did not even possess rifles. Given the stocks left over from WWI it seems difficult to credit.
    This was a left over piece of the prior version of the article that was incorporated into the expansion I undertook. Looking at the source used, Cheall states that when he reported to this unit (just prior to the outbreak of the war), him and all others were give a rifle and some basic equipment. Considering he is speaking for just his battalion, I think it is best to just remove the sentence to avoid confusion or unnecessary implications.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "divisions being deployed singly ... as equipment became available"; "the deployment of the whole TA in waves, as divisions completed their training". These statements seem to me to be contradictory.
    Per the source, the plan was to deploy TA divisions (as whole formations, and not being broken up and dispatched abroad) as they completed their training. The intent was to have the entire TA in France within 12-months. Per Gibbs, on the following timetable:
    The regular army deployed within the first six weeks
    The first ten TA divisions sent in three waves in the 4th, 5th, and 6th months of the war.
    The remaining 16 TA divisions in two waves in the 9th and 12th month.
    Assuming there were no hiccups. With that said, do you have a recommendation on how best to convey this information?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Maybe something like "The war-time deployment of the TA envisioned the divisions being deployed singly, to reinforce the regular army that had already been dispatched to the European mainland, as equipment became available. The plan envisioned the deployment of the whole TA in waves, as divisions completed their training."
→
'It was envisioned that the TA divisions each be deployed intact to reinforce the regular army units in France as equipment became available, with between two and eight divisions being so transferred at a time over the first twelve months of the war.'

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "redeployed to France as front-line capable soldiers" I am not sure that this works. Strictly there should be another hyphen between "front-line" and "capable", but it may be better if you could think of a better way of expressing it.
    I have went for the simple approach of dropping "capable", seems a bit redundant. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine now.
  • "although few had been trained how to use them" → 'although few had been trained in how to use them'.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "trapping those in Belgium from the rest of the French military along the Franco-German border" This doesn't work. Either "trapping" → 'separating' or similar, or rephrase the clause after "Belgium".
    Switched out trapping with separating, per your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was spread across the Pas-de-Calais and the Somme" Optional: I know that you have Wikilinked, but it may help a reader to change to something like 'It was spread across the French departments of Pas-de-Calais and Somme' as well. If not, the definite article should be removed from in front of "the Pas-de-Calais and the Somme".
    I have gone with your suggestion, and added in the additional detail and link.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the realisation that the German crossing of the Meuse had turned into a major breakthrough, the BEF and French armies began a fighting withdrawal from Belgium back to France" There seem to be some words missing from the first part of this[?]
    I have reworded part of this sentence. I hope it reads better now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have, rather cheekily, changed this directly. If you don't like it, please revert it.
  • "Petreforce, the grouping of the 12th (Eastern), the 23rd Division, and other nearby units" I had thought that 46th Division was also part of Petreforce, even if not much of it got to the front. If you, or your sources, know better, please disregard.
    I am not sure if it became part at a latter date. The division's role in the fighting around Arras diverges quite quickly from Petreforce, despite officially being part of it. Ellis states on formation it was the 23rd, one brigade of the 12th, along the Arras garrison (1 battalion, 18 field guns, other nearby RA and RE units, and a handful of tanks).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is not really my specialist area. It is fine as is.
  • "Petre informed his subordinates that the French were resilient on either side of the German breakthrough and only small German units" Maybe 'and that only small German units'?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brigadier Philip Kirkup's 70th Brigade 70th Brigade held the southern flank"
    Gah! Duplicate wording removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a composite battery of 11 field guns and two 4.5 howitzers" "11" → 'eleven'.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What followed, was a series of confused company actions" The comma is unnecessary.
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Battle of France" is a very long section. Would it be possible to introduce some sub-sections?
    I have broken it up into a few sections, and added an extra map. Not quite to happy with the way it looks so completely open to suggestions.
It seems ok to me. I don't think that it is worth trying to be too perfectionist about. (But that may just be me.)
  • The penultimate paragraph of "Battle of France" may benefit from being split.
    I made a split where I switched from talking about the division, to its separated battalion. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, yes.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you for the comments. I have tried to address them all, and have left some comments in regards to the ones I have yet to do so.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. A very impressive article, worthy of its topic. A couple of thoughts above. Where no comment, assume that I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, nice work, as always. I have a few minor points: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a possessive, should it not have an apostrophe? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the sentence, to hopefully satisfy both?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a plural possessive the apostrophe was in the wrong place (it would go outside the "s"). The tweak resolves this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments, I have attempted to address all pointsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2019 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/23rd_(Northumbrian)_Division&oldid=907644536"