Talk:Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 22:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments

I'm surprised it's taken so long for this article to find a reviewer. I'll post a review over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'd suggest noting that this was primarily a reconnaissance unit in the first para of the lead

   Done

• Please explain the initial structure and purpose of this unit in the "formation" section: am I right in thinking that a (lightly armoured) cavalry regiment was a standard part of British-pattern infantry divisions at this time? If so, were there any significant differences between the initial structure of this unit and the standard organisation?

  I added a couple of sentences using information from the official history about the initial structure. Kges1901 (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• "B Squadron fought a rearguard action at Tempe, retreating down the Volos road and losing several gun carriers." - not covered by a reference

   Done

• Ditto the second half of the para starting with "The brigade was strafed by German aircraft on the morning of 21 May."

   Done

• Do we know what the regiment's total casualties in Greece and Crete were? The article doesn't really capture the fact that the NZ division came close to being destroyed in this campaign, and I imagine that this regiment's casualties were heavy.

   Done

• Was the regiment operating independently of the NZ division during Operation Crusader? - the context for its role here is unclear

  I added an explanation about Operation Crusader - Loughnan states that the regiment operated with the division. Kges1901 (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• "On 16 June Div Cav was ordered to move to Egypt" - did the rest of the division move at this time?

   Done

• It's not really clear what the regiment was aiming to do in the events described in the "Rommel's second offensive" section - was it taking part in a counter-attack?

  The regiment was retreating with the NZ Division after the Battle of Mersa Matruh. Kges1901 (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

   Done

• As I understand it, the NZ Division took heavy casualties during this period. Do we know what this regiment's losses were?

  No, because the numbers on Loughnan p. 430 for the 1942 Egypt campaign also include El Alamein. Kges1901 (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ditto on the "Battle of El Alamein" section - some extra context would be useful

  See above reply, where exactly is extra context needed? 09:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Kges1901 (talk)

  Addressed the context issue, again, there are no exact numbers for either battle. Kges1901 (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• "The rest of the regiment advanced, conducting divisional manoeuvres" - it's not clear what this means: did the regiment participate in training, or support the rest of the division in combat?

  This doesn't seem to have been a training manoeuvre, so I have removed the phrase and replaced it with "screening the division's advance".

• "arriving on 1 June, and many soldiers were sent back to New Zealand on leave; they returned in July with replacements" - this seems a rather short turn-around time for the era (where sea transport from the Middle East to Australia or New Zealand took several weeks). Can you please double-check this?

  Thanks for spotting the discrepancy. When I wrote the article I seem to have confused a group of furloughed personnel with 3 month leave with another group that had 3 day leave. I have rephrased the sentence. Kges1901 (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• "On 5 July new weapons were issued" - was this related to the NZ Division's conversion to a unique structure where it included an armoured brigade?

• It doesn't seem to be related and appears to have been routine. Kges1901 (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Some context on the regiment's move to Italy and the situation there at the time would be helpful

   Done

• "Div Cav began forming the Eighth Army reserve" - this is a bit unclear, and the army would have had more than a single regiment in reserve

   Done

• "a foot patrol was sent" - did the regiment include scouts, or was this conducted by the armoured vehicle crews?

   Done

• "The New Zealand Division became a corps after its reinforcement by the 4th Indian Division" - please double check this: I thought that the NZ Corps was an ad-hoc corps formed from the NZ division and another division, and didn't involve re-designating the division

   Done

• More context on the Battle of Monte Cassino would be helpful

   Done

• "On 18 April Bonifant left for New Zealand" - do we know why?

   Done

• Context on the Allied breakout in June 1944 would be helpful: the fact that the army moved from positional warfare to a rapid advance isn't really clear at the moment

   Done

• "Another Wilder Force was formed on 3 October from the dismounted regiment and a machine-gun platoon" - why was the regiment dismounted for a few days?

   Done

• "since its light armoured vehicles were considered unsuited to Italy's climate" - wouldn't the problem have been that the vehicles were unsuited to the terrain, rather than the climate?

   Done

• Was the regiment organised as a standard infantry battalion, or did it have a unique structure?

   Done

• The return to positional warfare over the winter of 1944/45 isn't clear at the moment

   Done

• What were the regiment's total casualties during the war? Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

   Done

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Nick-D and Kges1901, this article has not been edited since exactly one month ago. No posts have been made to the review in an even longer time period. If work cannot resume on this review, can it be closed? Display name 99 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, I will work on the remaining task of adding context. Kges1901 (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually thought that I'd passed this! I'm really sorry that I didn't given that this is a very fine article, and have just done so. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)