Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 30 November 2019 [1].

59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division

edit
Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division, which was raised during the Second World War. This was a second-line formation that spent the first few years of the war at home in the UK. It was assigned to the 21st Army Group, and was the last British infantry division to arrive in Normandy. It took part in Operation Charnwood, followed up by a support role for Operation Goodwood, and then in subsequent fighting as the Second Army pushed south in the final stages of the Normandy battle. As a result of overall heavy losses among Second Army, and a lack of trained reserves, the division was broken up towards the end of the battle and the men largely dispersed among the other formations across the 21st Army Group in an effort to bring them up to strength. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

edit

I went through this pretty comprehensively at Milhist ACR, so I mostly have only minor grammatical points to add:

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked and working
  • Formats:
  • Ref 126 cites a quote. A page ref is required.
  • Sources: Hart - Maybe wikilink "Mechanicsburg", or at least add a PA to indicate state (it's not a particularly well-known location). Same might be said for some of the other locations, e.g. in minor British towns.
  • Couple of general points, for thought if not necessarily action:
  • Footnote (a) ends: "For further information on how division sizes changed during the war, see British Army during the Second World War." This might be better in a "see also" section, otherwise it looks as though you're using another Wikipedia article as a reference.
I see what you are getting at, I have actioned your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the section heading "External sources". If you're not citing them in your article, they aren't sources. "External links"?
Updated the title header accordinglyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality/reliability: No issues that I can see – sources meet the required FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, I had a look at this article when it was at ACR. Overall, it looks pretty good to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, I have actioned your comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've added my support now. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

This has been on the Urgents list for a while and hasn't received any attention in the last few weeks. It will be archived soon if it doesn't receive additional attention. --Laser brain (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Placeholder. I will review this as soon as I can. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5. Do you want to go first on this one, and I'll have a look once your comments have been addressed? (Which should leave me very little to do :-). ) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate. Here you go guys:

I have made some copy edits which you will want to check.

  • "It remained within the United Kingdom until 1944, assigned to anti-invasion and guard duties, and trained for combat overseas." Optional: '... while training for combat overseas.'
    Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most junior formation" Does that mean 'the most recently established formation'? If so, it may be better to say so.*"serving abroad" Being pedantic, perhaps 'serving in France'?
    It was the most recently formed British division that was serving within the 21st Army Group (the 51st Div had technically been reformed using the 9th Div, but the varying sources all point to the 59th as the "junior formation". The other 2nd Line division in the 21st Army Group, the 15th, had been formed about a month before the 59th. I believe only the divisions fighting in Italy were more recently formed, the 2nd line 46th division and the newly raised 78th; which was regular army). I have made a tweak to the sentence, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Much clearer.
Ah. It didn't occur to me that the link might be wrong.
Yes.

"clear the heavily defended German positions" Optional: would that be better as 'clear the strongly defended German positions'?

Footnotes

That's all I have. A cracking article, well up to FA standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comment. I have attempted to act on all your recommendations.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My minor niggles all addressed. No hesitation in supporting. You are doing fine work with these British divisional articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

I'll do this one as fast as I can. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the citation in the infobox - I do not believe it is necessary.
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see 7 howevers can we reduce them?
    Made some tweaks, hope this works.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Kent.
    LinkedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • several Canadian officers as part of the CANLOAN scheme Do we know the full name of CANLOAN?
    To the best of my knowledge, it is not an abbreviation. It is a codeword. It seems all source on the subject do not elaborate on the word, but explain the program as it is in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • he first divisional casualties were also suffered, due to German shelling No casualties?
    Numbers do not appear to be reported for the pre-fighting shelling.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charnwood began at 04:20 hours Remove hours.
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 177th Brigade's move to capture La Bijude You mean La Bégude-de-Mazenc?
    Negative. The village, if it can be called that, does not have a wiki article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Pomegranate Link?
    There is no separate article for this operation. The link in the lede is piped to the Second Battle of the Odon, which is already linked in the main body.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • David French stated at least seven men of the 2/6SSR were found guilty of mutiny for refusing to follow orders Because why?
    Full text and context: "Whether men who broke down on the battlefield were punished or treated as psychological casualties largely depended upon the judgement and knowledge of their regimental superiors. Men who broke down but who were well-known to their officers were more likely to be treated as medical casualties, especially if the latter believed they had done their best and had reached the limit of their endurance. Conversely, men who refused to obey the orders of officers whom they hardly knew were more likely to be punished. This was illustrated by the case of a corporal and six private soldiers in 2/6th Staffordshire Regiment in 59th Division, who were found guilty of mutiny when they refused to obey an order to advance issued their company commander. The latter had only joined the battalion on 13 July, barely two weeks before the offence was committed on 2 August, and three of the accused were even more recent reinforcements."
    Personally, I don't believe there is enough context to explain why they refused orders. If you have a suggestion, by all means.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrote "For the inexperienced troops of the 59th Division for whom Charnwood was their baptism of fire, the grim and appalling realities of combat were a chastening experience." --> "wrote: "For the inexperienced troops of the 59th Division for whom Charnwood was their baptism of fire, the grim and appalling realities of combat were a chastening experience.""
(talk page stalker) Being a little pedantic, the source states "of 59th Division", no the. (My copy does anyway.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct about the additional word not meaning to be there. I have removed it. I have also dropped the capital, something others have argued meets MOS guidelines. Other than those tweaks, unsure what else was being suggested here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it I think. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always for the review and comments. I have attempted to address them all, and have left a few comments above where I have not taken action.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the template per your comment. If there are any other items that you believe need to be addressed, let me know. Just a heads up, I will not be able to action them until next week.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/59th_(Staffordshire)_Infantry_Division/archive1&oldid=928603789"