Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of commanders of the British 2nd Division

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) 08:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of commanders of the British 2nd Division

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

After completing a write-up on the British 2nd Armoured Division during the Cold-War and moving it to the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article, I created a series of sub-articles after some advice on how to save space on my new pet project. This is the first of those sub-articles, and also the first list article that I have created. I present, a heavily sourced list of the 80 or so gentlemen that have commanded the British 2nd Division during its on and off again 200 year-history.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The licensing template on the sole image is flagging some sort of error. Hog Farm _Talk 21:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I have reviewed the common's page, and I have edited the existing tag and added a new one. I believe this should address the error and licensing.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass on image review. Hog Farm _Talk 15:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from AustralianRupert: G'day, Enigma, I hope you are well. Thanks for your efforts with this list. Lists aren't my strong suit -- still trying to work out what is, actually -- but I have a few minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, the General officer commanding (GOC): the caps here looks off to me; either "General Officer Commanding", or "general officer commanding" (my military moron brain screams the first, but I assume the second based on Wikipedia's house style)
Tweaked to the latterEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and disciple of the: typo
Gah! FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
for these reasons and service in the Peninsula War --> "for these reasons during in the Peninsula War"?
I have tweaked differently, does this work? If not, I will drop my change in favor of your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need, that works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After Peninsula War ended in 1814 --> "After the Peninsula War ended in 1814"?
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
formations bore the name '2nd Division': I believe the MOS prefers double quote marks
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, the following links are overlinked: Napoleonic Wars and Second Boer War
Removed the dup linksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the temporary rank of Lieutenant-General once in Africa: the rank would technically be presented in lower case here
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd division was: caps for "division"?
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the 1990s Options for Change: suggest adding italics for the title
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in the The London Gazette, for ranks: typo "the The", also suggest adding italics for the title
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sometimes you use "Major-General", but other times use "Major General" -- is this deliberate?
At some point in the late 90s, the British ranks - per the Gazette - switched from major-general to major general.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, Oman is probably overlinked
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, are there OCLC numbers for the Oman works?
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, is there an ISSN for The Army Quarterly'?
I was unable to locate an ISBN for that particular edition, but did find a generalized OCLC record in lieu.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, August 1813-April 14, 1814 --> spaced endash
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and review. I am in the same boat, lists are not my strong suit.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will take a look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" by Everard Wyrall; the compiled of the 2nd Division's First World War official history" - something seems off grammatically here, I don't think "the" is the word you want
Thank you for the catch, I have tweaked this sentence.
" In was temporarily transformed into an armoured division, before being disbanded at the end of 1982." - I think you want it, not in. Also, it would be nice to have the year in which it became an armoured division.
I think I went to add the year in, and forgot about it? I have tweaked this too.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend adding the total number of commanders somewhere in the lead, as this is currently a list of commanders with rather little about the commanders in the lead
I have added a figure for all permanent GOCs, at the end of the first para.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add an exact date for when it disbanded after Crimea in the table, so there is something for when Markham ceased to command? "The end of the war" isn't going to mean much to many readers who aren't familiar with the Crimean war.
I have tweaked that. The cited source does not provide a date the division or the expeditionary force disbanded, other than it did so during 1856. I was unable to find a Gazette article announcing Markham stepping down from his role; likewise a Gazette article discussing the end of the expeditionary force or the division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate to indicate for each officer why they ceased to command the division?
I could add that in, for most (some would just have to have a year, such as Markham above). Most of the cited material includes the dates the officers left their appointments, so it would just be a little time and formatting. Were there are gaps between the Gazette appointment dates and no indication of who took over, I have mentioned the unnamed acting GOC in the list; for example, between Charles Douglas and Bruce Hamilton. I would note that on other division articles (where the GOC list is embedded in the article), I have always went with the date they took over as they are generally continuous unless there was an acting GOC.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate to use date ranges when feasible? Or is it safe to assume that the terms were continuous between the two?
Per the above comment. I will await your reply.

Not familiar with how these lists are generally formatted, so feel free to not do anything that's not feasible. Hog Farm _Talk 14:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments. Sorry it has taken me a few days to act on them, and I have attempted to address them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Since the terms are more or less continuous, I think the current date range system makes sense as it is. Hog Farm _Talk 14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

I have done some minor copy editing as I have gone through. Let me know if you don't like or don't understand any.

What does "and included a pivot role" mean?
Updated to what I actually meant!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"was ultimately responsible for the administrative, logistical, medical, training, and discipline of the division." This is not grammatical. Eg, you can't say "was ultimately responsible for the administrative ... of the division."
Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"was responsible for the administrative, logistical, medical, training, and discipline of the division.". You still can't say "was responsible for the administrative ... of the division."

I have made a further tweak ... I think I have it this time?!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. You have indeed.

"Leith was scheduled to take command of the division on this date, but never actually did." Delete "actually".
DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"following injury at the Battle of Albuera." Was ha injured or wounded?
I relooked at the sources, and it seems I had inferred his leave as a result of him being wounded. The sources dont stated that, so I have removed this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and as part of the Army of Occupation afterwards. " Can we be told where was being occupied.
Location addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"after de Lacy Evans had been injured"> Or wounded?
I have left this as injured, as it was not the result of Russian action. I have added the context that he had fell from his horse. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Cubitt was promoted to Lieutenant-General during his tenure as division commander." 1. Lower case l and g. 2. Why is Pennefather's similar promotion treated differently?
I haven't made a change here yet. In Pennefather's case, he was a major-general and given acting command. When de Lacy Evans was invalided home, Pennefather was promoted and given command of the division (and not in an acting capacity). In Cubbit's case, he was just given command of the division from the get-go. Would it read easier, if Pennefather's two entries were merged and this explanation added to the notes?
"The division fought in the Burma campaign of 1944–45". Is it known where? And/or what battles, if any, it took part in?
I have added two, which are mentioned by Joslen.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and review, I have attempted to address them all and have left a question above for you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I have made no comment then I am content with your change and/or explanation. Just one grammatical issue to untangle. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

I have done some minor copy editing as I have gone through. Let me know if you don't like or don't understand any. -- Gog

"The 2nd Division was an infantry division of the British Army, which was formed numerous times over a 203-year period." I'd appreciate the years of this period asap when reading, preferably in the first couple sentences
I have reworded the opening with this in mind, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
is there a reason to refer to it as the "peninsula war" rather than "peninsular war"? The latter seems much more common to me.
I am going to blame this on a typo, and I have fixed it throughout.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It served throughout..., it was stood-down would it be possible to eliminate the two uses of it? Something like It served throughout the Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855), had an critical role in the Battle of Inkerman, and was stood down at the end of the war in 1856, perhaps?
I have reworded per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It took part in all the notable battles" what does 'notable' mean here?
There were four major battles to the relief of Ladysmith, and the division was present for each of them. I have reworded the sentence to " It took part in all the battles that comprised the Relief of Ladysmith,". Better?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentences beginning In the subsequent Battle of France,, 'it' is used repeatedly, as is the "In [BLANK], it [DID SOMETHING] structure". Could you vary it any more?
I have made several tweaks with this in mindEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did the division do anything from the 1990s to 2012?
I have added in that it was a training formation
"command of the nucleus " What does 'nucleus' here mean?
The 5th Division was only forming when he was given command, but that isnt really important here so I have removed this part.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, I have attempted to address each of the points raisedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Luto 2013 could use the publishing location, but other than that everything seems to be cited that should be and the sources all look reliable and properly formatted. Pass on the expectation that the location will be added. Hog Farm _Talk 00:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I missed that, but now added.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2021 (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.