Talk:1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 05:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

G'day, as I'm currently working on the review for the 27th Infantry Division, and these are similar articles, I will review this one also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Overall, this article seems in pretty good shape to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Structure/headings: per the 27th Inf Div review, I'd suggest making a couple of tweaks to the headings. I'd suggest adding a second level heading called "Structure", and then subordinating the "Peacetime organisation" and "Wartime organisation" headings to it as third level headings. Additionally, I think "Royal Yugoslav Army" would probably be better rendered as "Background". I also think "Mobilisation" might be better if it were subordinated to "Operations" (all just suggestions only - open to discussion, of course);
• lead: should mention some details about the structure
• clarity: " For example, infantry divisions had a wartime strength of 26,000–27,000 men..." out of curiosity, how did the size of the Yugoslav cav divisions compare to the British?
• spelling: "machinegun" --> "machine gun"
• clarity: "but this was stymied by a lack of motor transport..." so the formation remained largely a horsed formation? Perhaps this could be explicitly stated?
• links: add links for squadron, battalion, brigade, regiment etc. (as necessary)
• wording: "Stripped of most of her..." maybe "its" instead of "her"?
• formatting: in the References, the Brayley source is missing a place of publication
• formatting: are there ISBNs or OCLCs for the Figa and Hoptner sources?
• images: the map appears to be appropriately captioned, and appears to be PD. If possible (in the future some time), it would be great if a photo could be obtained of a division member on horseback, or something similar, could be added to the infobox (no action required)
• referencing: well referenced to reliable sources throughout (no action required)

• It appears that most of these have been done now. I have adjusted a couple of things, so I would ask that you please check that you are happy with my changes before we finalise this review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• All good, Rupert. Thanks for the review, both divisional reviews have helped me template a better structure and fix MOS issues etc. Appreciate it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• No worries, I've passed the article for GA now as I believe it meets the criteria. Good luck with taking the article further if you decide to do so. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)