Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/55th (West Lancashire) 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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2020 [1].

---

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC) and User:Kges1901

This article is about the British 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division, which was raised in 1908 as part of the Territorial Force. On the outbreak of the First World War, the division was drained of resources to reinforce others formations until it ceased to exist. In late 1915, the division was reformed in France. It went on to fight in several of the major battles on the Western Front: the Somme, Passchendaele, Cambrai (where the division's retreat resulted in a court of enquiry and a knock to its reputation), Lys/Givenchy, and the Hundred Days Offensive. In the inter-war period, it became part of the Territorial Army (which replaced the Territorial Force), and was transformed into a two-brigade motor division. As a first-line formation, it helped form the second-line 59th (Staffordshire) division on the outbreak of the Second World War. During the war, it remained in the United Kingdom assigned to home defence duties. It had been intended the division would deploy in 1944, but instead it was once again stripped of its assets for use in other formations. The division was maintained as a deception formation, assisting Operation Fortitude, before being demobilized at the end of the war. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:55th_(West_Lancashire)_Division_positions_at_Guillemont.jpg and other maps need a US PD tag

• File:164th_Brigade_WW1_battle_patches.svg and similar do not warrant copyright protection for the uploader - they are simple shapes. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ni Nikki. As always, thank you for the review. I have made changes to all reviewed images, which hopefully address your points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the particular map named above has been changed, but several others still have just the UK-anon tag

I apologize about that, I have updated them now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

I did a fair bit of work on this for GOCE and a number of issues were discussed on the talk page.

• "the majority of its units volunteered for overseas" Picky point - can "units" volunteer? Or only the individuals comprising them?

• The sources in question state that units volunteered. Technically it would be men in units volunteered, but in the units of the division the rate was near 100%, such that subordinate units were sent to the front as units because of the overwhelming majority having volunteered. Kges1901 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Is there a source to support the "near 100%" figure? The one provided below says every unit volunteered, but only 60% of the men in the unit had to volunteer for that unit to be deemed to have volunteered. Factotem (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Weell. If you are positive that that is how the sources phrase it, then I suppose we need to go with it.Gog the Mild (talk) 7:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I see your point Gog. Kges1901 is accurate in his description, whole units shipped out. To quote the source:

""A day or two later came the telegram from Lord Kitchener inviting units to volunteer for service overseas. The response was immediate and emphatic. Every units in the Division volunteered." (p. 21) and "...a steady flow of battalions, R.E. companies [etc] ... proceeded overseas..." (p. 22)

With that said, is there something that could be tweaked to aid the non-versed reader?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Driveby comment: Individuals volunteered. If enough men in a battalion volunteered, it would be sent overseas. "Enough" was set at 80% on 13 August, but this was reduced to a more realistic 60% by the end of the month. This is covered in the 2nd para of the Mobilisation section over at Territorial Force. The text and source can be lifted from there if need be. Factotem (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Factotem: Thanks for the correction. I have rephrased accordingly. Does this satisfy your concern? Kges1901 (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not key to the article or the FAC. The sources I have only give broad, brushstroke figures for the TF as a whole, with only a few specific examples. I was simply curious to know if there were any sources for the level of volunteering by the men of the division, for my own interest. Factotem (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

After posting the above I realised you had amended the article accordingly. Unfortunately, that edit did not accurately reflect the source. Rather than confuse each other (well, certainly me) with further back and forth here, I edited the article to accurately reflect both the source and, in a footnote, how it actually worked. Hope that's OK. @Gog the Mild:, this is my edit; does that answer your comment? Factotem (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I have found some specifics in battalion histories that I read while working on portions of this article. For example, the Liverpool Scottish battalion history (McGilchrist 1930) states that "all officers and more than 800 other ranks volunteered at once," with a further 300 recruits enlisting to bring them up to strength. Those that did not or could not volunteer formed two new companies. That of the 1/4th Loyal North Lancs states that the battalion volunteered "practically to a man." Kges1901 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Factotem: Personally I would scrap the quote marks, but it's not a deal breaker. Re the footnote, "Kitchener had signalled a willingness to deploy overseas those territorial units in which 80 per cent of the men (reduced to 60 per cent at the end of the month) had volunteered for service overseas" doesn't really convey a lot. Do we mean 'Units in which 80 per cent of the men (later reduced to 60 per cent) had volunteered for service overseas were liable for deployment'?

Quote marks are the choice of the article's editors; I have no opinion on that. The footnote conveys exactly what the source says, i.e. that Kitchener, who was so averse to using the TF to reinforce the regular army overseas that he chose to raise a completely new army from scratch (with the agreement of the regular army), expressed a willingness nevertheless to deploy some TF units overseas if they volunteered. How is the use of "liable" an improvement? Factotem (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Strike my last comment. You are correct. The footnote reads fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I know there has been a detailed discussion here, but I have went in and made some large changes to this section (largely based off the material Factotem provided, and my limited access to Becke). I believe the footnote was better served in the text, and with the additional text now should make this whole thing much more clear ... well I hope so anyway!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "its units volunteered for overseas service and the division was stripped of assets; those who remained were merged" I think that a reader may be confused as to whether units, assets or (unstated) individuals "were merged".

• What actually happened was that the units that remained after the transfer of the last remaining infantry, mainly the division artillery and some small logistics units, were attached to the 2nd West Lancashire Division. Kges1901 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah. That seems clear. Why not cut and paste that clear phraseology into the lead?

Done - I don't want to get too specific in the lead. Kges1901 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• "which resulted in the defeat of the German Army and the end of the war" The last time I checked neither of these were the consensus of modern scholarship. I am of course happy to proven wrong. However, a skim suggests that the main article makes neither claim. Perhaps you would care to reconsider?

  Toned down to what the article states, the culminating offensive of the war (which one would argue defeated the remnants of the German Army and won the war, but that's not really a discussion for here).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• When copy editing I asked on the talk page 'Why the upper case T in "14 Territorial divisions", "envisioned the Territorials taking over" etc?' I understood that it was agreed that sentences would either be rephrased to use 'Territorial Force' (as in '14 Territorial Force divisions', for example), or a lower case t would be used. If this is mot the case, could we reopen the debate as to whether "Territorial" used adjectively should be considered a proper noun for MoS purposes?

  Agreed, and changes made.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Six months following mobilisation, when the troops would have come up to an acceptable training standard, Haldane was confident that up to a quarter of the men would volunteer for overseas service." Another picky point. I think that what you actually mean here is 'Haldane was confident that up to a quarter of the men would volunteer for overseas service six months following their mobilisation, when the troops would have come up to an acceptable training standard.'

  I don't see any fault with that argument, tweaked accordingly.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Driveby comment: That is actually a faulty argument. Haldane designed the TF to reinforce the regular army overseas in the event of war, but political opposition forced him to present it as a home defence force which could not be compelled to serve overseas in order to get his reforms through Parliament. He hoped that up to a quarter would volunteer for foreign service on mobilisation, and the Imperial Service Obligation was introduced in 1910 to allow territorials to volunteer in advance. This is covered in the second para of the Formation section in Territorial Force. Factotem (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking to address this soonEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• As there are articles on the actual North Lancashire, Liverpool and South Lancashire Brigades could the Wikilinks target these rather than the geographical areas.

• Done.

• "The division, as a formation, was inspected ... " Does "as a formation" add any information?

• This seems to be meant to imply that the entire division was inspected.

And would a reader not take the same understanding from 'The division was inspected'?

Bedtime here, I shall continue tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• "practicsed"

  Updated to BE.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Optional: "lacking flanking guards" →'lacking flank guards'. Also optional: link to Covering force.

  Edited out during the cut downEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "artillery batteries lacked mobility and were too slow in moving" Consider deleting 'in moving'.

  DittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "but it had also suffered from training and mobility flaws" This is a repetition of the previous sentence, and I would suggest deleting it.

  It is now goneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "With the popular enthusiasm for the war, the division was flooded with potential recruits." Optional: To my eye this doesn't quite work. Maybe 'With popular enthusiasm for the war high ... ' or similar?

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Do we have a precise date for the divisions reformation? I ask because "authorised the reformation of the 55th in France in November, and its former artillery units were given orders to move to Saint-Omer in mid-December" suggests 1915, while the infobox states 1916.

  I have made some changes to the article, from what I can see of Becke he is a little vague but it seems that its "birthdate" would be 27 Jan 1916.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Second installment

A little more copy editing for you to check over.

• Any chance of a footnoted explanation of 1/9 etc, for non-aficionados who may read, and pronounce, them as fractions.
• "consisting of the (1/10th (Scottish) Battalion, King's (Liverpool Regiment) (Liverpool Scottish)" Is the first parenthesis a typo?

  Typo removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "the 1/4th Battalion, King's Own (Royal Lancaster Regiment)"; but "1/4th Battalion, Loyal North Lancashire Regiment". All units and formations throughout the article should have a definite article in front of them.

  Believe I got them allEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "In February 1916, the division took over a sector of the front line" We don't know when in February?

  I have added a dateEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Elements of six battalions"; "Two of the attacking battalions were repelled while the other four entered"> The first quote states "elements of"; the second reads as if entire battalions were involved.

  I have tweaked thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Footnote a: Is this for "quiet periods", similar to that the 55th experienced, or for the whole war averaged (ie, including the Somme etc)?

  The whole war averaged: "British and Canadian battalions suffered about 100 casualties per month on average on the Western Front in the First World War." It was added into the article as Peacemaker, during the GA review, was a little astounded by the high casualties during a "peaceful" period. It is the closest, that I am aware of, any stat that shows the average wastage level so one can kind of make sense of the casualties.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Losses for this raid are not reported. During this period in the trenches the division suffered 1,110 casualties.[a] On 25 July, the division was relieved by the 11th (Northern) Division" Would it not make sense to swap these sentences, to put them in chronological order?

  I have moved them aroundEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• "The 164th Brigade advanced on the division's left flank. The advance of the 1/4KORL on the left flank" Was the 1/4KORL on the left of the 164th Brigade? Ie the extreme left of the entire division? If so, could we say this?

  No longer relevant following the trimmingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Noel Godfrey Chavasse (a Captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps" Either the parenthesis should be a comma, or you need a closing braket.

  This has been addressed via trimmingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• In the paragraph commencing "An attack on 9 August" the two distance conversions are spuriously accurate. "23 m"!?

  Also removed in the trimmingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• "prepare for an attack after 20 August" "after"? Is the actual date of the attack known?

  DittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Cochrane Alley" I don't think that throwing this name in helps a reader. Either you need to explain its relevance - and what it is - or (preferably IMO) rephrase without it.

  Ditto

• "Under a creeping barrage" The RA isn't that bad. Possibly 'behind'?

  That made me giggle, and it has also been trimmed outEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• "five German 77 mm (3 in) gun batteries and captured them" Is the number of guns captured in the five batteries known?

  I will see if I can find anything, but Coop only mentions that it was five batteriesEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• "a methodical counter-attack (German: gegenangriff)" Why do we need the German word?

  We don't, and removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Can we be told that A.J. Smithers is a historian at first mention?

  AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• It is not clear, without hovering on the cite, whether "no officer of field rank or above ... to blame for anything" is quoting Smithers or the enquiry; the first time I read it, I assumed the enquiry. Perhaps it is. Could do with in line clarification.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to update, I am holding off from further comment until the article stabilises. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Organizations like IWM and National Library of Scotland are publishers, not work titles

  Could you elaborate please? In these instances, we have used the cite web template and the website section is where they are cited.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  They should use |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  I have updated this nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• What makes britishmilitaryhistory.co.uk a high-quality reliable source?

  Replaced with RSEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• FN254 has a stray parenthesis

  FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• FN255 is missing author

  Author addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of References

  I believe I fixed all that were out of wackEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Hesketh, Sheldon, Tomaselli. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for pointing those ones out. I have adjusted them now :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Barbier 2007a has a state name but none of the other refs do - should be consistent

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Hall 1910 is missing location, same with McGilchrist

  Locations addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how editions are notated

  I have amended several, where the edition field was being used for the reprint info.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• How does Newbold meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  Quoted and referenced in published secondary sources discussing the topicEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  • • Examples? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

      Used as a source in the following published secondary sources:

      Place, Timothy; Military Training in the British Army, 1940-1944: From Dunkirk to D-Day; Todman, Daniel, Britain's War: Into Battle, 1937-1941; McKinstry, Leo, Operation Sea Lion; Beckett, I.F.W, The Amateur Military Tradition, 1558-1945; Forczyk, Robert, We March Against England: Operation Sea Lion, 1940–41.

      Used as a source in the following thesis:

      Jones, Alexander, Pinchbeck Regulars? The Role and Organisation of the Territorial Army, 1919-1940EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Ping. Newbold looks good given the citations, but some of the other points above are still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, thanks for the additional feedback. I believe I have now addressed the remaining points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Factotem

Not sure if I have the time to give a full review, but skimming through, there are a few things that concern me:

• The article runs to 71 kB readable prose, 11 kB beyond the point at which it should "probably" be divided, according to WP:LENGTH;

  I have cut 10k out today, although there will need to be additional information added based off the information you have provided.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• That overrun seems due in part to excessive detail. Do we really need so much detail on Langlois's assessment in the Formation section? Do we really need four sentences on Baxter's VC-winning actions? Or for Procter's? Both have their own articles, and shouldn't this article focus on the division's activities, rather the individual deeds of its men?

  Largely having left Cambrai and Givenchy along for the moment, I have cut down the VC info. Likewise, I have cut Langlois' assessment (which I will supplement with material that you added to the talkpage)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Similarly, there are four paragraphs on the actions around Guillemont in August 1916 which, I have to assume, were relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme because they do not appear to have been part of a named battle. The Battle of Guillemont itself didn't occur until September, according to the article linked to in the first of those four paras (but which, the wording in the article suggests, preceded the West Lancs' actions - I think you need to check either link or source). Couldn't the four paras be simply condensed to something along the lines of "In August, during the Battle of the Somme, the division suffered 4,126 casualties in unsuccessful attempts to capture Guillemont..."?

  I will review the article with this in mind. As for the link to that particular article, I discussed this with the chap who wrote up the majority of the battle article. The 55th's actions are described in the Battle/Fourth Army/August section. To fully quote his response to me, when asking essentially the same question you have:

  "I hesitated about them but in James, E. A. (1990) [1924]. A Record of the Battles and Engagements of the British Armies in France and Flanders 1914–1918 those are the dates. It's as if the earlier fighting hasn't been seen as part of it, only the few days leading up to the capture of the village. If I had only put those events in the Battle section the background and prelude would have been the majority of the article. I remember that when I started I thought it would be a fairly small article, like the Battle of Thiepval but that for continuity I had to begin with the end of Delville Wood. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  So, my last edit for the day (and it made me feel icky), I have just condensed this entire section and also made a few tweaks to the wording. Just as a start, to fully addressing everything else, does this work (not just for you Factotem, but also Gog, who I know as similar concerns per below)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You still have a lengthy, detailed narrative which can, IMO, be better placed in the Battle of Guillemont article and summarised here simply as:

"In August, during the Battle of the Somme, the division fought three actions in the prelude to the Battle of Guillemont. The attacks were largely unsuccessful, and the division suffered 4,126 casualties. Two men of the division, Second Lieutenant Gabriel Coury and Captain Noel Chavasse, were awarded VC's for their actions during the fighting."

This tells us the key details, with links to the relevant articles for those who are interested in learning more. In principle, IMO, there's no need for a blow-by-blow battle narrative for every action the division was involved in unless the story involves more than a simple battle narrative. Thus, the division's actions in the Battle of Cambrai might usefully get more detailed coverage because of the enquiry that followed, and its success in the Defence of Givenchy also appears to be particularly conspicuous, and therefore more deserving of more detailed coverage. Factotem (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made an edit along the lines you have suggested, although I opted (and hope you agree with it remaining) a little of the context.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some context is fine and that's now the level of detail I think is appropriate. Factotem (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• The second sentence of the lead, about the division's role in the event of an invasion, is not supported in the main body. It's misleading, if not completely wrong, because...

  I have fixed this, so it now reflects the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• ...before the war, the division was earmarked for deployment to Ireland, where it and the East Lancs Division were to replace two regular army divisions and allow them to be deployed on the continent. This plan, drawn up in 1912 I think, was dropped as logistically impossible on the outbreak of the war. The division did not move to Kent "to continue training in preparation for service in France." The Liverpool Brigade was sent to Canterbury, where it joined the Second Army of the Central Force, the mobile element of the home defences, while the South Lancashire Brigade was sent to Scotland to help defend the Forth. At the start of the war, the TF divisions had roles in home defence that this article completely ignores. The decision to deploy them overseas evolved as the regular army was decimated by the German offensive of 1914. Kevin Mitchinson has written three very good (and very expensive) books on the subject of the TF in general (see the bib in Territorial Force for details), which is where I got this info from. If you want, I can send you copies of the pages in which the West Lancs Division is mentioned - there aren't many.

  So the current wording is based off the divisional history, which in turn does not provide that much information on what the division was doing from the outbreak of the war until its breakup and reformation. The relevant quote is "...the Division was ordered to Kent for training...". I do wonder how that jives with the sources you mentioned, which I would very much like to take up your offer of copies of the relevant few pages.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Relevant info from Mitchinson's three books transcribed to the article TP. Factotem (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I would also add that the divisional history was written by the divisional chaplain in 1919, just after the war. Whilst I don't think that's grounds for objecting to the reliability of the source for basic facts and figures, some of its evaluative statements should be handled with care. As an example, on p. 20 Coop writes, "...upon the outbreak of the war in August, 1914, the West Lancashire Division was at least the equal of any Territorial Division in the country." But we know from Mitchinson that in December 1914, General Ian Hamilton, commander of the home forces to which the division was at that time allocated, noted that the West Lancashire Division was 'fully 20% behind the rest' in efficiency and training." (2014 p. 79) Factotem (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Another example of the care that needs to be exercised in the use of Coop is the narrative surrounding the Battle of Cambrai. That section in the article is almost exclusively sourced to his divisional history, and it reads as if little blame can be attached to the division. But if we turn to Mitchinson we learn that ""Some battalions of 55th (West Lancashire) Division virtually disappeared east of Epehy in what could be seen as questionable circumstances in late 1917..." (2014 p. 217) Mitchinson does not go into any further detail, but I'm wondering if there are other accounts more recent and more detached than Coop that are not so reticent in discussing those battalions' apparent failing. Factotem (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

My general MO is to use an official history as the framework, and allow historians to provide assessment. I have attempted to do this throughout the article. But will revisit this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made several changes to the "Early Years" section to include the relevant info about the proposed deployed to Ireland. More to come on the founding section to reflect the other points you have made.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've fully understood the situation with your recent changes. The decision to deploy the two Lancashire divisions to Ireland to relieve regular formations there was made before the war (1912, I think, but not entirely sure), not "Following the start of the First World War...". Also, it's incorrect to state that "the division was assigned to Central Force". Only one brigade was. The units assigned to the Forth defences were not part of Central Force. I'm also not sure any source explicitly says that a brigade was deployed to Oxfordshire, only that parts of the division were based there (I could be wrong on that though). Factotem (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made a few additional tweaks. I believe my initial edit by Central Force was a more general generalization than I intended after looking at what I could access of Defending Albion on Google Books last night. I have amended accordingly, which I hope you will find satisfactory :)

As for Ireland, I have made some revisions after re-reading the material. From the quotes and what I can access, I think what is now in the article should make the point more clear although I have not been able to date it as I could not find anything.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• The "merging" of those left behind that has been queried by another reviewer is actually a fairly significant detail not fully covered in this article, though it does not need much more than a sentence. Those territorials who could not (or chose not to) volunteer for service overseas formed a second-line of TF, intended to take the place the first line units had vacated in the home defences;

  I was able to access the relevant page in Becke, and have added a few lines in about this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Another detail missing from the article is the pre-war effectiveness of the division. You give a lot of space to Langlois's assessment, but he's pretty much a contemporary source, writing in 1919, which makes his assessment slightly dubious, I think. You could instead provide a few words about the woes of the pre-war TF and its poor reputation in general, which you can easily steal from Territorial Force, and tie that back to the West Lancs with statements based on the fact that in 1912 "a large proportion of the troops in the West Lancashire [Division]...were judged to be incapable of carrying their own kit...", so physically unfit were they (Mitchinson 2008 p. 167), and on the fact that on the outbreak of war the division "...was not particularly highly rated and had been 2,900 below establishment in July." (Mitchinson 2008 p. 217)

Sorry to be so negative, particularly as I know you put a significant amount of effort into the work you do on MILHIST articles, but based on the little I have looked into, this is not ready  :( Factotem (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Along the lines of some of Factotem's comments, without necessarily agreeing with their conclusion, I have found this comment by me on the article's talk page from September: "The paragraph starting with the Battle of Amiens seems unnecessarily detailed to me. I suggest boiling it down into a couple of sentences from "The division was ordered ... " Ditto the battalion attack in the next paragraph." Gog the Mild (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I only have time for a quick check in today. I really do appreciate the feedback. I want it to be right, and I want it to be good. I believed some of the minor tweaks and cuts we did earlier took away some of the over-detail (to address the VC point, in particular, this was based off prior feedback of not putting enough in although in hindsight that was from far shorter articles), but I was shortsighted in that as they clearly did not go far enough.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed: in the "Cambrai court of enquiry", shouldn't it be "inquiry"? Factotem (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Secondary sources use either term interchangeably. The national archives file for the relevant documents uses the term "enquiry".EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you are cutting large swathes in response to my comments suggest that you accept the article needs significant changes in order to get through FAC. I have no problem with the concept of FAC as a venue in which articles are polished, but I think this goes way beyond polishing, and indicates that the article is not ready for FAC. I'm afraid I must oppose on that basis. Sorry.

But, I am aware that the article as nominated passed MILHIST ACR, which I respect as the best review forum after FAC. It may be in your best interest and the best interests of the article to see if the ACR reviewers have anything to say here; @Peacemaker67:, @AustralianRupert:, @CPA-5:, @Sturmvogel 66:.

In summary, my main objections are:

• Excessive detail (WP:WIAFA 4. Length)
• Neglects details about the pre-war division and the plans for its use in home defence (WIAFA 1b. Comprehensive)
• Relies too much on questionable sources, specifically Coop, who is too close to the subject in both ties and time, and is insufficiently scholarly (WIAFA 1c. Well-researched, WP:SOURCE, WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP)

• To be clear, I'm not objecting to the use of Coop's work out of hand, only to its use in certain contexts where he might reasonably be judged as biased or misinformed (he clearly does not know about the TF's role in home defence at the start of the war), and where more recent, more scholarly sources would be more appropriate. Factotem (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• G'day, responding to the ping above...I will have another read through today and try to offer some help where possible. I have started, but am feeling a bit under the weather at the moment and need to have a lie down. Will try to come back later. Re Coop, I wonder if it possible to try to verify the information in the areas that are of concern, using other sources? (For instance, maybe Edmonds or Miles, or one of the other official history volumes). Sorry, I don't think I can access these. The snippets from Mitchinson on the talk page could probably be worked in to help address the concern about coverage above; I'd be happy to try to help bring some of these threads together, if the nom is happy with this. Anyway, I will come back in a bit when I've had a rest. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, I have read through the article again today and taken the opportunity to do a little copy editing -- please revert as desired. From my read through, I notice that the Battle of Cambrai, Defence of Givenchy and Local attacks in the Givenchy sector sections seem a bit long compared to others (say for instance the Battle of the Somme section), so I would suggest that any further efforts to reduce detail might focus on those areas if desired. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits. Further inclusions based off Factotem to come, along with further cuts/refinements in the areas you guys have mentioned.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. --Laser brain (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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