Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of the British 1st Division (1809–1909)

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

History of the British 1st Division (1809–1909)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

History of the British 1st Division 1809–1909 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The British 1st Division was formed in 1809 and is still active today. Due to its long history, several articles have been created to adequately cover it. This one covers 100-years, from formation through to the end of the Boer War and becoming a permanent part of the British order of battle. The GOCE have given it the once over and it has already passed a GA review. I look forward to further feedback to make the article better.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Article looks pretty good. A couple of comments.

  • During the French Revolutionary Wars and early in the Napoleonic Wars, the largest permanently organised structure within the British Army was the brigade I am not sure that this is correct, or that it is supported by the source. (Why no page numbers?) That the regiments were permanent organisations is beyond question, and even today they are described as the "largest permanent units" [1] but the source says that brigades consisted of two or more battalions or regiments associated on "an often permanent basis" and describes the brigade as the "primary organizational structure". Does that really mean that the brigades were permanent like the regiments? None seem to trace their lineage back before 1902. I think another source is needed here. Or just water it down.
    I only have access to the e-version of this work, which does not include the page numbers. Relooking over the source, the wording I employed was not the best. I probably should have written something more like: "... the largest organised field/combat structure within the British Army was the brigade..." or "... the brigade was the largest formation used in a campaign..." etc. Open to suggestions on a preference or alternative, before making the edit as I agree with your point and want to make sure its worded as best as possible.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds fine. Hawkeye7 [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|(discuss)’6th,diversitu,;canning,syurp,storage,;(grape,just a I’d check on one and they steal cash soon flea market now hi Al,Arredondo,(hi Jjac ijr international, ballots and fright exchange.
    Updated now, FYIEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and by mid-1945 was based in the Middle East Well, yes, but this annoys me, even more so in History of the British 1st Division during the World Wars, which skips from 1944 to 1946. The 1st Division moved to the Middle East in January 1945. There was some thought of sending it to NW Europe, but in the end it stayed in the ME. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Joslen has the division arriving on 2 Feb in Palestine (same citation as already used), so rather than being vague as I was I have updated the article to reflect this. For the latter article, my intent (at some point) is to flesh out from Feb 44 (where it looks like I left off) through to the end of the end of the war, so that skip should eventually disappear. In preparation for the end of that article though, the divisional history ends with them being taken off the line in January. Most sources I have looked at so far, then just glance over service in Palestine. I have found one that stated a return was planned in June for Italy, but the end of the war nixed that; but, I haven't looked much further currently.
    As always, thank you for the review and comments. I have either attempted to address or have left comments for both your points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the January withdrawal to the ME, see Jackson et al., Volume VI, Part 3: Victory in the Mediterranean: November 1944 to May 1945, p. 213; for the planned use in Operation Goldflake, see Nicholson, The Canadians in Italy, p. 660. But you can probably find better sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I will be sure to check them out and see what else I can find to flesh that part out, when the time comes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

[edit]

This article is in good shape. I have the following comments:

  • "which rebuked the British and German troops," - I suspect you mean "which repulsed the ..."
  • The 'Waterloo campaign' section seems excessively detailed compared to the section on the Peninsular War; I don't think we need so much detail on this division's role at Waterloo
  • " between the British Empire, the South African Republic, and the Orange Free State" - the tensions would have really between the British government or similar, not the empire.
  • "The reformed division consisted of the 1st and the 2nd Brigades, each containing four infantry battalions" - did it include any other units (artillery, cavalry, logistics, etc?) Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EnigmaMcmxc: I'll be travelling overseas from mid this week, and may take a few days to respond to your comments here. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

[edit]
  • "During the French Revolutionary Wars and early in the Napoleonic Wars.." Could you give year ranges for these conflicts, as you later do for the Seven Years' War?
  • Wikilink line infantry.
  • "..the division was considered a social but not a military elite.." The grammar doesn't seem quite right here, and I'm not really sure what it means.
  • "Charles Oman, a historian of the Peninsular War, wrote the division followed these orders and that.." Add "that" between "wrote" and "the".
  • "The division then recklessly charged.." This POV needs inline attribution, otherwise it looks like the encyclopaedia is opining that this charge was reckless.
  • "..which rebuked the British and German troops.." This isn't a common modern use of "rebuke", I'd suggest finding an alternative phrase.
  • I'm confused, the Peninsular War section finishes "The troops marched to Bordeaux, from where they either returned to the UK or were transported to North America to take part in the ongoing War of 1812." and then the Waterloo campaign section starts "At the end of the fighting, British and Hanoverian troops moved into the Southern Netherlands..." At the end of what fighting? Presumably not the Peninsular War, because we're told that the troops returned to the UK or North America. The end of the War of 1812? This needs clarification.
  • "..the division suffered 232 killed and 819 wounded, and four men were reported missing." Because these numbers are being compared to each other, they should all be in the same format, so switch "four" to "4".
  • "Clive Ponting, a historian of the conflict, wrote Cambridge.." Again, "wrote that" please.
  • "..were killed or wounded or reported missing." I think this would be better as "..were killed, wounded or reported missing."
  • "..the Secretary of State for War St John Brodrick set.." As "Secretary of State for War" is a position and not a title, Brodrick's name should be in commas: "..the Secretary of State for War, St John Brodrick, set.."

A nice article overall, just a few prose quibbles to resolve. Good work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 8 October 2023 (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/History_of_the_British_1st_Division_(1809–1909)&oldid=1189936084"