Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/38th (Welsh) Infantry Division/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2016 [1].

---

38th (Welsh) Infantry Division

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division was a British Army division that fought in several of the main battles of the First World War. Most notably, on 7 July 1916 it launched its initial attack on Mametz Wood that ended in failure. Over the following days, the division cleared the woods at a high cost. This paved the way for future British attacks on the Somme. In addition, it inspired Christopher Williams to paint a somewhat famous depiction of the events. It is my hope that the article can pass FA standards and be on the front page for the 100th anniversary of these events.

Following the Somme, the division became somewhat of an assault division and led the charge in numerous engagements throughout 1917 and 1918. The division was disbanded in 1919, and reformed in 1939. During the Second World War, the division engaged in home defense duties and eventually became a training division. The article has been copy edited, passed its GA review, and was on course to pass its A-Class review although a lack of reviewers has stalled that process.

I believe the article meets the FA standards, and all comments are welcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "which also saw influence securing officer commissions": I don't know what that means.

  Per A Nation In Arms p.117, the full quote for you: "The use of influence to secure commissions was rife in the Welsh Army Corps". It is then followed by a few examples. Basically, those with the political influence were able to ensure that their sons etc. were able to become officers regardless if the were qualified or trained for the role. Recommendation for improving the wording? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  I tweaked it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• See MOS:COLLAPSE.

  I have read over the section, and the various templates that should not be used and I do not see them in the article. If you are referring to the OOBs, I was able to get the 70th Div article passed without incident. Is that what we are talking about?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) doesn't have an OOB collapsebox until the end-sections; it's not a problem there. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  To confirm then, a dedicated OOB section for the three collapse-boxes?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  All I can tell you for sure is that it's a MOS problem in the main text. I don't keep up with what Milhist likes to see in endsections, but I suspect it's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  Amended to keep in line with the MOS.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• "most adequately bombard[ment]": ?

  Fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Done for a few hours. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  Appreciate the comments, and have left some feedback; look forward to your replies and any other comments you have.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• "machine gun fire", "machine-gun fire" (lots of both): consistency.

  I have amended this, with the sole exception that is within a quote.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've gotten rid of some of the single quote marks; it would probably be a good idea to get rid of the rest of them.

  I have removed all except, if I am not mistaken, those that are quotes within quotes. The few remaining, I have re-confirmed with the sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you Dank for your edits, comments, and support. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:51st_Division,_Battle_of_Pilckem_Ridge,_31_Juily_1917.jpg: if this is free in the US, we don't need a non-free tag for it. English Wikipedia only considers US copyright

  Amended per your comments, I hope this suffices?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  Still seeing a fair-use rationale that isn't needed - suggest replacing with the more generic image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  My apologies, I missed that!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• File:Hore-Belisha_1935.jpg: why is this PD in the UK - which of the given rationales applies? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  I had assumed that as the work is of a then sitting politician, #1 would apply. Further reading of the NPG website indicates they allow usage of their works under BY-NC-ND (which i note is not allowed on the commons). Advise in regards to UK-PD would appreciated, otherwise I will move to remove the image (and replace it with a somewhat inferior one from the IWM that is covered under UK-PD). Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. 1 applies where the work is by the UK govt - is that the case here? It could be a work for hire, but that would depend on who did the hiring. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  I have been able to find little else on the photo, and believe the best course of action for the moment is to remove it from the article, which I have done.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - super apologetic for not being able to get to this earlier; I was traveling across the US and had less Internet than I thought I would. Maybe a new target could be the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Pilckem Ridge? Thoughts:

  Likewise, sorry for the delay in getting back to you and thank you for the review, comments, and edits. The anniversary of Pilckem now seems like an achievable target, especially considering it began the rehabilitation of the division's reputation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  • The division raised in 1914 was the 43rd Division of Herbert Kitchener's New Army. 43rd? That comes out of nowhere. This needs more context or could be left for the main body?

    I made a few tweaks, do they work? Or still a little out of context and, per your recommendation, drop it from the lede?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  • On 5 August, Herbert Kitchener was appointed Secretary of State for War assuming a vital and largely independent role, within the war cabinet. Language here could be cleaned up.

    Tweaked, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  • In the training section - why disband the 80th just to recreate it? Sounds like a paper-only change? (I assume not—can you explain this more?) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

    I no longer have access (other than snippet view) to Hesketh, so I have added in what I can.

    These are my edits, regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

    • These all look great to me! Thanks, Enigma. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• Have been through the References, and they all look to meet FA requirements in terms of reliability and formatting, except the Hart source, published by Stackpole Books (a "popular history" publisher best avoided). But given the material sourced to Hart isn't exceptional, I think it is ok in this case. I question the need to link the publishers in the References section, but it also isn't a war-stopper. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

To alleviate any concern, as I have seen similar comments made about Stockpole, the book is the paperback reprint of the original hardcover that was released in 2000 by Praeger (part of Greenwood Publishing Group), and the author is/was a lecturer at Sandhurst. The book itself is extremely well sourced and provides ample footnotes throughout. It is an academic text, rather than a popular history. I do appreciate the scrutiny though, in order to get this to FA standard.

In regards to the links, it is a habit I have picked up; they can be easily removed if requested.

Thank you for the review, kind regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

SupportComments

• (the largest on the Somme) - does this refer to the wood or the number of prisoners? It wasn't clear to me, but perhaps I'm being obtuse. Wouldn't hurt to insert "wood" after "largest" though.

  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• once Horne has been introduced, he should just be referred to as Horne thereafter.

  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• The use of Welsh as an abbreviation for the Welsh Regiment seems entirely usual, but when you use the term "Welshmen" it tends to create a bit of confusion as to whether you are referring to those from the Welsh Regiment or Welshmen in a more general sense. I suggest using a term such as troops or soldiers or British or the 38th Division rather than "Welshmen" or "Welsh" to avoid confusion. It is apparent that not all of the troops of the division were in fact, Welsh.

  I think I got them allEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest consistently using prefixed ordinals for German formations (like 111th Division instead of Infantry Regiment 116).

  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• footnotes should be in numerical order, [68] is ahead of [67] at one point (as in [68][67]), there may be other examples.

  I think I got them allEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• link 47th (1/2nd London) Division

  I have moved the link to the first mention of the divisionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• could you just check the reference to 143 machine guns? It seems excessive for 634 prisoners.

  Verified, and I have amended the text and made this a quoteEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think "Belgium border" should be "Belgian border"

  SortedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would have liked to see mentions of the VCs awarded (with some details) in the narrative, rather than just a list at the end

  I will address this shortlyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  I have now added in details on why the five men were awarded VCs.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• not sure about the initial capital on Militiamen

  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• otherwise, looking very good. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for your comments, I will address the VC situation shortly (probably this weekend).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Looking good, but a few thoughts from me, mainly around the flow of the text. I've gone up to 1919.
• "The division arrived in France with a poor reputation, seen as a political formation that was poorly trained and led. " - "poor" and "poorly"

  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• "the reputation of the division was sullied by miscommunication " - "sullied" felt odd here; you'd usually only sully something which had a good reputation, which the unit here doesn't have.

  Good point, I have made a change that I hope should resolve this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• " ceasing to exist during 1919." - the main text says "the division ceased to exist by March 1919", making the "during" feel a bit odd.

  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• " In 2007, Simkins wrote " - I'd always recommend explaining to the reader who someone is when first introduced, e.g. "In 2007, the historian Peter Simkins wrote..." Ditto Hughes, Farr, Thacker etc. Gary Sheffield gets his first name in the article, but others don't; should be consistent.

  To many cooks... I got the ones you mentioned, and on reading through I did not see any others. So I hope I got them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• "David Lloyd George stated publicly that he "should like to see a Welsh Army in the field"." - I'd normally expect to see the cite immediately after the relevant quote.

  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• "Despite the training, it was not until November that the division had been fully equipped with rifles.[16] To be declared fit for overseas service, the division's soldiers had to fire 24 rounds on a rifle range." - is the implication that they couldn't deploy overseas because they lacked rifles to do the test? If so, worth spelling it out.

  I have yet to change this one. The full quote and context: "On the South Downs, the training areas were better but equipment in no better supply. In late November the division was ordered to move to France. All troops had to fire a short course of twenty-four rounds on the rifle ranges before being pronounced fit to deploy; a regular solider would have fired ten times that amount. ... "

  So, the division had yet to deploy and equipment was an issue, but I believe the author is getting at the troops were just not as trained as the pre-war regulars in musketry. It seems it may even be a reference (after a little googling) to Serial 22 Table B, Appendix II in the Musketry Regulations Pt.1 aka the "Mad minute".

  I can do some digging to try and find more context?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  I have expanded the note to cover this with a but of detail.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• "and by 5 December it arrived in France via Le Havre." - "via" felt odd here, Le Havre being part of France. "arrived in France at Le Havre"?

  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• "These troops had to "cut their way back out" and returned with just eight men." - the quote needs in-line attribution

  SortedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• "Final Battles" - each paragraph is beginning the same way, "On 5 August, the division...", "On 21/22 August, elements of the 114th Brigade...", "On 25 August, the division advanced..." which reads a bit oddly

  I will address this shortly.

• Image File:38th Division, Battle of Pilckem Ridge 31 July 1917.png is first published in the UK, but lacks a UK copyright tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  Likewise.

  Per above discussion: as English Wikipedia only considers US copyright, I have replaced the file with a locally uploaded one.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  I would like to thank you for your comments. I have addressed most, left a reply in regards to one, and will address the rest in the following days.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  @Hchc2009:: I apologize in the tardiness in responding to some of your comments. I believe I have now addressed all issues you raised. Further comments are very much welcomed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Coord notes

• "Elements of the 10th SWB had came under heavy German machine gun fire and were suffered numerous casualties. Williams directed a Lewis gunner to suppress the German position, while he assaulted it single-highhandedly. Rushing the position, the took the surrender of 15 Germans." -- "were suffered"? "the took the"?
• "34,500 militiamen, all of the age of 20..." -- does this mean all 34,500 were aged 20? Or do we mean "under the age of 20" or some such?

Finding these at this stage of the review suggests we need someone to walk though the article top to bottom just to ensure there are no other grammatical errors -- I'd recuse from coord duties and do it myself but prefer to see someone outside MilHist look it over because that should help ensure accessibility for the wider audience. Hang loose for the moment, I might see who's around... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the first at least: one shouldn't edit when tired. But I will hang on from making further edits for the moment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments

This is an excellent and extremely detailed article and Enigma deserves credit for bringing it together. I have no problems with the level of information, but in reading it, I do have some problems that relate to the prose. It's not a problem with the content, only the way it is presented. I've pulled some examples out of the first few paragraphs. I could comment further, but I believe that, as Ian suggests, a review from someone outside Milhist might be of more benefit. Perhaps a look from the Guild of Copyeditors?

• "On 19 September 1914..." The order of events is a little confusing here. "By the end of 1914, only 10,000 men had joined the Welsh Corps. During December, after the ambitious plan for a corps had been scaled back..." When was the plan scaled back and how had 10,000 men joined the corps if it had been scaled back in December? Did the lack of recruits contribute to the scaling back?

  @Ranger Steve:: Just to note, I have not forgot about your comments. I awaited the completion of the copy edit by John, and I am now addressing your specific concerns. For the moment, I have only touched this one. I have revisited the sources, and attempted to clarify the situation. Just as a starter, does this clear things up on this issue?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Crikey, where did the weekend go? Sorry for the delayed response. Yes, that is a significant improvement, nice one. Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• "The division, comprising the 113th, 114th and 115th Brigades made up of battalions from the...". This seems quite late to be introducing the constituent units of the division, especially having dealt with the recruitment, training, disbursement and an inspection by Lloyd George already. At his point in the article it's out of place with the rest of the paragraph and almost looks like an afterthought.

  Amended this per the previous edit.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• "When Horne found out that the 14th RWF had not moved and that their attack had been pushed back to 8 July, he summoned the commanding officer, Major-General Ivor Philipps, to Corps headquarters and sacked him." It would be easy to assume that Philips was the c/o of the 14th RWF in this sentence. More concerning, this seems an odd place to introduce the GOC, much like my previous point. It's quite late and given the nature of his appointment, it would surely be better to introduce him in the earlier paragraph, where there is the point made that "Questions were also raised about the divisional leadership and about securing officer commissions through influence." This paragraph lacks examples of this nature, when Philips provides a great case in point.

  Introduced Philipps earlier in the article per the previous edit. I have just expanded the info on Philips to provide an example of political influence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Many authors are introduced quite suddenly with no real explanation as to why their views are being expressed. A word of introduction would help in each case. I see Hchc2009 has picked up on this, but I don't really think it's been fully addressed. Just putting the first name in front of Farr doesn't tell me any more who he is. Travers is another.

  Started to work on this point, and will look for other areas to improve based off your previous suggestions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That's all really. These sorts of things are really quite minor, but stand out as I read through. Cheers Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Tks Steve. To follow up, I asked an experienced non-MilHist editor (John) to look over the prose; he's done quite a bit of work on it and may still be going. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Just following up, so what is the best course of action at the moment? I acknowledge a few of the more recent issues were editing without review (as I noted earlier, editing and being tired is not always the best course of action), although things like Steve has pointed I could begin working on and re-reviewing the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Tks for taking the time to copyedit, John -- have you completed what you wanted to do? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: I would action Steve's comments and then we'll see where we are. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, will do. It may take a few days, not on top of the world atm.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: and @Ranger Steve:: I believe I have addressed the concerns Steve raised, any additional comments are welcome as are any concerns. Sorry in the delay in getting this action'ed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Just boarded a ferry to the Netherlands with extremely patchy internet, and just remembered this. Afraid I'm without internet for the next two weeks, but I'm happy with changes made as a result of my comments. Assuming that the copyedit of the entire article has been complete to co-ords approval, I'm happy. Ranger Steve 148.122.187.2 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• "meant ... meant"—two different meanings. Perhaps the first might be "intended"? And "form ... formations ... formation ... formation" in four lines? (The lead contains seven occurrences of "form" in various forms. Perhaps the first might be "be", and explore synonyms for one or two others (but maybe that's inappropriate ...)?
• "where it had to capture"—not very clear: so it was under orders to do so? And thus far the reader may assume they failed to capture, or you'd announce first up that they'd captured.
• "The division secured the wood, needed as a jumping-off point for the Battle of Bazentin Ridge, but its reputation was adversely affected by ..."—it's ok, but you might consider "which was needed", and a semicolon after "Ridge". Unsure.
• Can't see a way of avoiding "attack ... attack".
• "This redeemed the division in the eyes of the upper hierarchy of the British military and it came to be considered one of the elite."—the hierarchy came to be viewed as? And one of the elite what?
• I wonder whether the third para should start with "The division was not chosen to be part of the Occupation of the Rhineland after the war, and was demobilised over several months. It ceased to exist by March 1919.". As it is, the downfall marks a sudden turn, brushed off at the end of a paragraph of achievements. Seems to flow better forward than backward?
• "Transferred around the United Kingdom and assigned home defence duties, it was never deployed overseas as a division." Maybe "it was never deployed overseas as a division, having been restricted to home defence duties around the United Kingdom."? Again, only a suggestion.
• "a jumping-off point"—I'm trying to think of a more elegant wording, but can't. Tony (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Tony1:: I have reworded sections of the lede based off your comments; do the changes work? As for moving the demobolization of the div to the final para, so not to burden an otherwise positive list, I do not - for the moment - think it is entirely appropriate due to the 20-year gap between the two.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Looks good. Tony (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.