Talk:70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 03:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• No DABs, one dead external link.
  • Missed the dead external link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Images appropriately licensed.
• This promoted several German counter-attacks What does promoted mean here?

Reworded, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Where did the 6th Div reform? If in Egypt, state where.

Confirmed it was Egypt, and amended the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• the Australians inducted the incoming British troops what does inducted mean? Oriented?

I am open to suggestions on rewording this sentence, although I am not a fan of oriented in this situation. The Australians showed the relieving units their positions, provided tactical information, and went on some raids with the British.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In American terminology, oriented is exactly what the unit being relieved does for the relieving unit when you have a relief-in-place. Not sure if usage in the Commonwealth is different. Perhaps you might query one of our Commonwealth veterans like AustralianRupert or Peacemaker67 as I've never seen inducted used in this context.

It would appear I am looking at this as a civvie! I will take up your advise and drop them a line.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Are we are talking about the Australians familiarising the Brits with the positions they were taking over? Plain English is probably best here for the casual reader. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd suggest using the word "familiarise" or similar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Amended per suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• The division had been earmarked to deploy to Crete, where its 14th Infantry Brigade was based I think that the 14th Brigade "would have been" based is better English considering that the brigade didn't actually make it to Heraklion. At least, AFAIK.

The Official History, in very brief mentions, has them based at Heraklion and the defending the area. In addition, this placement is supported by additional secondary sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, great. Then why aren't their activities and withdrawal covered a bit more extensively? Admittedly, the division itself wasn't in Crete, but one of its constituent brigades was and that needs to be dealt with, since, presumably that brigade wasn't fit to participate in Exporter. BTW, spell out which brigades did participate in Exporter instead of teasing me by stating only two.

I tried to focus on divisional activities. I will dig up some info on the 14th in Crete. Likewise, for Exporter.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Re Exporter: highlighted which brigades took part. Re Crete: Added a note with a summary of the brigade's actions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, that "summary" is a bit much. Forex, we don't need to know the names of the ships that evacuated the brigade, only that it was evacuated by RN warships and that they were attacked en route, with casualties. Otherwise looking good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have cut bits down, although I think a second set of eyes would be best of cutting it down further into a more concise summary.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. Also cleaned up the next paragraph as you have a habit of using passive voice "it was realized" forex, reads better as "The British realized". You really need to watch your use of helping verbs like "would be" in lieu of "were", etc. The passive voice also weakens agency, like in the first example. Anyway, see how it works for you. Make any necessary changes and I'll look them over and hopefully be able to promote it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Lieutenant-General Alfred Godwin-Austen the XIII Corps commander, Put a comma after his name.

Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Around 50 tanks, of the 15th Panzer Division The comma here is unnecessary.

Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Under the cover of night, the 2/13 Australian battalion Put the unit's name in the same format as earlier.

Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Is it El Duda or Ed Duda? I've seen both.

The spelling depends on the source. I have went with Ed Duda, since the Operation Crusader articles uses that spelling.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• The commanding officer of the 1st Essex reported that the position was well prepared and he was confident of repelling any assault. Scobie sent word stating "Well done, I admire your spirit".[90] Infantry had reinforced the captured ground, the 14th Brigade of the 70th Division held a line from El Duda to roughly 3 miles (4.8 km) to the north-east. The Essex were still dug in at El Duda, with the 19th New Zealand Battalion to their north-east, then the 4th Border Regiment, the 18th New Zealand Battalion to their east, and the 1st Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment to their north at Bir (Magen) Belhamed and the previous Axis strong point known as Leopard. This seems out of order. Perhaps you should put Scobie's message last after detailing the defences.

Moved that sentence around, and made minor rewording to the previous ones.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• After civil power was restored in the affected areas the 70th Division Put a comma after "areas"

Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• argued that the force was to lightly armed typo here, "to" for "too"

Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Make that you are consistent about place of publication in your references.

I have updated all references, there is only one that is lacking a publication location. OCLC does not have it, nor does Googlebooks. The publisher's website state they are based in Luton. Should that be used, or leave it without a publishing location?

EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Luton is fine. BTW, there was no need to update ISBNs to 13 digits; 10-digit ISBN are perfectly acceptable.

Added in the location. As for the update to 13, just personal preference and I thought i would go for consistency rather than a mix.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Every reference need either an OCLC or ISBN #

Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• James, Lawerence (1988). Imperial Rearguard: Wars of Empire, 1919–1985 (1st ed.). Brassey's: Putnam Aeronautical. Who's the publisher here?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Updated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• The division had no field artillery assigned until after the end of Crusader? Who then supported it in Tobruk?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What about this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this! Thanks for the reminder.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Addressed this, at last!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Where are we on this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not been available much over the last few days. I reviewed the changes you made to the note about the 14th Brigade in Crete, and agree with them (acknowledging this is not really the place for the historian's opinion about the brigade's actions).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's OK, I was just wanting to know if my edit worked for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)