Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand)

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand) edit

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand)/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like to improve this article and hope to eventually get it to FA. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:NZ_Divisional_Cavalry_leaving_Auckland.png: which of the options listed in the tag applies here? For the Paton images? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For File:NZ_Divisional_Cavalry_leaving_Auckland.png: Option A. For the Paton images: Probably Option C (Crown copyright) Kges1901 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the former, can you demonstrate that the photographer is unknown? The source link is the image only, no other source details. For the latter, can you demonstrate that Paton was acting on behalf of the Crown at the time he took those photos? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here are the details for the parade image: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2DiCa-f7.html. The photo is attributed to Loughnan's collection. Paton was official war photographer, per AWMM. Kges1901 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I really like what you've done with this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyediting; please check you are happy with my edits;
"However, the structure was soon changed to conform with that of the British Divisional Cavalry Regiments": can it be clarified here what that structure was?
Done
perhaps the march through Auckland could be mentioned in the body of the article (possibly just before embarkation)
Done
"On 19 June, the regiment lost its first man...": this seems a little awkward, perhaps: "On 19 June, the regiment experienced its first fatality..."?
Done
"The regiment became part of the Second Echelon's Headquarters...": --> "'C' Squadron became part..."
Done
"With the remainder of 5th Brigade, C Squadron..." (missing definite article before "5th")
Done
"In July 1940, the division was sent to Mersa Matruh...": the 2nd New Zealand Division hasn't yet been introduced in the body of the article, so I suggest mentioning it by its full name here;
Done
"The mortally-ill Caro Pierce" --> "The mortally-ill Pierce" (as you have already mentioned his first name). Also, it should possibly be clarified what illness he was suffering from
- Loughnan doesn't directly describe the illness. Kges1901 (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Lieutenant Colonel Carruth": mention first name on first mention
Done
"Cut off from 10th Brigade headquarters..." --> move the link for 10th Brigade to the earlier mention
Done
"Composite Training Depot on 26 July": suggest removing the red link here, as I'm not sure of the notability of the topic for a stand alone article
Done
"would cross the border north": clarify which border
Done
"Fourteen Bren Gun Carriers arrived on 22 August 1941..." suggest removing the link here for Bren Gun Carrier, as it has already been linked earlier in the article
Done
wikilink 9th Brigade
Done
"General Schmitt": full name (if known), and link if possible
Done
"Major Nicoll succeeded..." mention first name on first mention (same for the other COs referred to in the body of the article)
Done
As the Reorganization section is quite short, I suggest merging it with the one below it under the one heading (this will also help shorten the Table of Contents, which will reduce the whitespace at the top of the article);
Done
As the Syria paragraph is quite short, I suggest just merging the section with the one below it under the one heading
Done
"Rommel's offensive": Rommel hasn't been mentioned prior to this, so a little more context needs to be given to the reader about who he is, and a link should be included;
Done
the "Rommel's offensive" section is largely about the "First Battle of El Alamein", so I suggest adding a wikilink to that article in the body of the article somewhere;
Done
add a wikilink for "Battle of Alam Halfa"
Done
I suggest adding a couple of sub headings to the Italy section for consistency of style with the North Africa section
Done
wikilink "Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry"
Done
watch out for overlinking terms. I removed a few, but there are probably a few more: 4th Brigade, 21st Battalion, 5th Brigade, Mersa Matruh, Ordnance QF 2-pounder, Bernard Freyberg, are a few examples. If you instal this script, it will help you find them: User:Ucucha/duplinks
Done
did the regiment receive any battle honours or theatre honours?
Done - Battle honours were indirectly awarded to successor unit New Zealand Scottish Regiment
if known, perhaps you could include a short sentence on the numbers and types of gallantry awards members of the regiment received?
Done
in the Further reading section, the two works by Deed probably should clarify that "Matamata" is in New Zealand, e.g. "Matamata, New Zealand"
Done
G'day, I've made a few more tweaks, which you might like to check you are happy with. I've added my support for promotion, also. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments: Just some minor points:~~ Went over the rest with a fine comb, everything looks good.

"... British force sent to Greece to defend the country from Germany. ... from Greece." - perhaps the second should also be "the country." For some reason it reads oddly right now.
Done
"After reequipping for several months" - "After spending several months reequipping"
Done
"C Squadron tank during exercises in England" - is the image a Mk. II or Mk. III? I think it's worth mentioning here.
- The caption doesn't say. I'm no expert at tank identification, perhaps a more knowledgeable editor can figure it out. Loughnan, p. 39, states that the squadron did use the Mark VI in the UK.
"was diverted to the United Kingdom" - from where? I assume enroute to Egypt? If so, I'd recommend "while enroute to Egypt, it was diverted..."
Done
"Russell Force was moved to Aghya in early May 1941, and German paratroops attacked Crete on 20 May" - this suggests there was some sort of linkage between these two events, which I don't think is the case. Suggest making a new paragraph at "German paratroops".
- Done
"discovering 29 tanks in a wadi near the coast" - This section could use some clarifying. So they discovered these tanks, and then withdrew?
- Loughnan p. 159 says that they reported the tanks on a sweep. Kges1901 (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"protect against an Axis attack from Turkey" - the prospect of an Axis attack...? I don't believe any such attack actually occurred?
- Done
"which created a need for more troops to stop the Axis advance" - suggest removing this statement, it breaks up the sentence it is in and doesn't really need to be said.
- The statement was an attempt to explain why the NZ division was sent back to Egypt. Kges1901 (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I get that, but it seems it is obvious without mentioning it in the middle of this sentence. It's not clear it needs to be there at all, but if you think it's worth it, perhaps make it its own sentence or combine it with a description of the overall issue. IIRC the Turkish issue quickly resolved itself as a non-threat, so perhaps a statement like "As the threat of invasion from Turkey faded, and new pressures emerged in Egypt..." Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - split the sentence Kges1901 (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, albeit with minor reservations that 80% of the article is sourced to a single book. LavaBaron (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2016 (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.