Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/45th Infantry 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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

45th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

The 45th Infantry Division was a second-line Territorial Army division that was active for most of the war, and did not see service outside of the UK. The division guarded vulnerable points, was relegated to home defense, aided in the admin/logistical side of Overlord, and was then stripped of its assets to reinforce combat formations. In 1944, it was disbanded and then recreated as a holding division. In this role, it aided in the retraining and rehabilitation of those not up to fitness standards, ex-POWs, and returning troops. It was demobbed at the end of the war, and not reformed. It has been looked over by the GOCE, and has recently passed a GA review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias[edit]

The article needs a bit of work to make it MOS compliant:
- The General officers commanding table needs row and column scopes to meet MOS:ACCESS (see MOS:DTT).
  Rows and columns addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  I can see the column scopes, but the table still needs row scopes. Harrias ^talk 11:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  If you can advise here, it would be appreciated. I am not following how to add in this code, without rendering everything in the table in bold.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for your edit to assist here. It does look a little off right now, is it MOS compliance?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly, can you confirm whether the Order of battle show/hide functionality meets the requirements of MOS:COLLAPSE?
  I believe it does meet the requirements, per the MOS: "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g. several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats)." At present, the information in the collapsible sections supplement and in some cases repeat information that is already in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC
  That sounds fine to me. Harrias ^talk 11:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full review to follow. Harrias ^talk 19:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"..to recruit over their establishments.." What does this mean?
I have removed the technical term, and replaced with complement (which is what it means).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Link Cadre (military)
link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History

In the infobox, the date the Division became active is listed as 15 September 1939, but in here it is listed as 7 September. Can you confirm which is correct, and bring them inline with each other.
Fixed typoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In May 1940, as a result of the swift nature of the German operations on mainland Europe, Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces Walter Kirke grew concerned over the threat posed by the Germans to South East England. As a result, the division was assigned to Eastern Command and deployed to Sussex to defend the coast. As a result of..." Remove the repetition of "as a result", which appears here three times in three sentences.
Mixed it upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"..and the third positioned around 6 miles (9.7 km) inland to provide a counter-attack force. The third brigade would be positioned further inland to provide an additional counter-attacking force.." Repetition of fact here.
The first sentence is referring to the reserve battalion of the forward brigades. The latter sentence is in regards to the division's reserve brigade. Additional thoughts on this point?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I see now. I clearly misread it, and therefore misunderstood. No problem with it as it is. Harrias ^talk 06:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent sentences start "In July, the division.., "In December, the division..", "As a result, the division..", "In March 1943, the division..", "This deployment.., "In December 1943, the division... Try and find a way to avoid the repetition, which just makes it sound like a bullet point list.
I have made a few tweaks with this mind, I hope these work. Otherwise, if you have suggestions?
"The division's move to and from Northern Ireland were.." Either "move" and "was" or "moves" and "were".
AdjustedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a nice article with relatively minor issues, mostly repetition, which is not surprising due to the routine nature of the division's history. Harrias ^talk 11:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, and nailed the main issue: not a whole lot to reportEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all looks good to me now. Harrias ^talk 20:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

Another great article on a British division. I have a few comments:

Lead

drop the comma after "mainland Europe"
droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
link counter-attack
linkedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
add a comma after "21st Army Group"
just to clarify, which one … so I don't mess up the article with my poor grammar usage lolEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added it in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the division was renamed to the 45th Division"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Body

suggest "from cadres that could be increased"→"from cadres around which the divisions could be expanded." and link cadre (military)
Excellent suggestion, which has been added. Link also added.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "and commander of an infantry brigade"→"with experience commanding an infantry brigade"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"September ~~when~~that the"
tweaked
drop the hyphen from "fourth-contingent"
removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
rank for Kirke
rank addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "As a ~~result~~consequence of the German victory" to avoid two sentences starting with "As a result..."
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"With the return of the 135th Brigade" suggest saying when this was
added the dateEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"up to 75 per cent of these men ~~would be~~were deployed"
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result, the 77th (Holding) Division"
addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"As part of this ~~recreation~~re-establishment"
rewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in the infobox, suggest "{{circa}} December 1945"
addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you for your review and comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, nice job on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to your reviewEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5. This is looking good for promotion, so unless you want to dip your oar in shortly, I'm going to list it? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good day PM I just woke up, and I was already planning to make my review here. Give me a moment. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate. Just checking you were still intending to do a review. Take your time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September as the 45th (Holding) Division No link for the unit?
I wouldn't believe one would be needed, this is the article that discusses that particular unit.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces General Walter Kirke grew concerned Sea of blue here.
An unfortunate situation, but it is the first mention of all three. Any suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the Dunkirk evacuation, the division was not deployed overseas Remove "was" with "were".
I believe in the context of this sentence, was would be correct surely?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, division is singular, so "was" is the right linking verb to use. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Essex coastline in 1942.[41][c].[39][44 Unnecessary full stop between the citations also replaces the letter note after the citations.
Great catch, and removed. I have also moved the note.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was the placed directly under the command of Home Forces You mean "then".
CorrectedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Territorial Army (TA) was a reserve of the British regular Replace "was" with "were.
I disagree on this one, I believe it is correct. Although if anyone else wants to chime in, by all means.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, was is correct. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. The rest were addressed in the GAN review. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EnigmaMcmxc: and @Peacemaker67: Greetings gentlemen, I just follow this English plurals#Singulars with collective meaning treated as plural rule which states that organisations or words where there are members in are mostly plurals in British English. Division, battalion or platoon could also be plural. Of course, I try to deal with them. Also EnigmaMcmxc could you re-order the refs in the former "unnecessary full stop" issue? if that's done then I can support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That rule cuts both ways, like many "rules" in English. If it was "the members of the division were", then the reference is to the individuals making up the division. In this case though, we are talking about the singular entity of the division as a whole, so "was" is the right linking verb. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reordered the references, so they are no in numerical order.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day CPA-5, are we good here? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to go to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. A limited spot check raises no concerns. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Sources are consistently and appropriately given. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, this looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this seems a little awkward: In an effort to downsize the army while maintaining as many formations as possible at full strength, in order to...; specifically the "In an effort" followed by "in order to"
I have tweaked this, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following the British Army return from France --> "British Army's return"?
I made a slight reword to the sentence instead, I hope this is okay?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted slightly. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of its brigades were --> "One brigade was"?
tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, Allport is overlinked
2nd link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, hyphen for the year range in Molesworth
Is it not already the correct symbol?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I meant should the hyphen be a dash? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
images generally look appropriately licensed to me but the description page for "File:45 inf div -vector.svg" might need the date of when the image was designed.
The IWM lacks that information. Suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest maybe just adding "c. 1939-1945" to the description page, which would probably be sufficient, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As always, thank you for your review and commentsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:45_inf_div_-vector.svg should include the date for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:47, 23 September 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.