Wikipedia:Peer review/18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)/archive1

18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Heavily edited this article over the last few months. Looking for a review to help towards the GA, A-Class, and FA review process. Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not sure need to go into so much detail about the political machinations in the 1st para of the Background section. Enough to say something along the lines of tension rising and war looming, and let anyone who wants to know more follow links to articles on International Crisis and causes of WWII.
Put Order of Battle in Formation section, and don't make it a hide box? This seems to be the practise with similar articles, and it helps when individual regiments are introduced later in the narrative.
In regards to this one; over the last two years while working on division articles, it has been the consensus to have the OOB in its own section and in a drop-down box. For the moment, I will be leaving this one alone.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"This deployment also saw the division's first casualties of the war." How?
Clarified: air raids.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems curious that Churchill could not ship divisions to Middle East, but could ship them to Nova Scotia so that the Americans could ship them to the Middle East. Maybe explain a bit more?
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know you introduce the regimental abbreviations immediately on first mention (most of the time), but instead of later writing about "2CR" and "5RNF", maybe it aids understanding better if you refer to them as "2nd Cambridgeshires", "5th Norfolks" etc. That seems to be normal elsewhere. It doesn't help that 6th Bn Royal Norfolk Regiment is abbreviated to 6RNR but the 5th Bn of the same regiment is abbreviated to 5RNF.
Thanks for the catch! Not to sure about the semi-abbreviations; thus far, the other articles I have worked on, the reviewers have been okay with the shorter abbreviation style. Further input to establish consensus perhaps?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a personal thing, I guess. For me, "5th Norfolks" scans better than 5RNR etc., but I don't believe there is any standard that says you must use one style over another, so it's your choice. FactotEm (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last para of 53rd Brigade: Malaya section, 1st sentence says that "...on 22 January, 5RNR and a battalion from Batu Pahat reopened the Batu Pahat–Ayer Hitam road at Milestone 72...", then the very next sentence says that "Key ordered 5RNR to reopen the road...on 23 January...". Doesn't make sense - did the road get closed again after first reopening?
Made a change based off the Aus OH and enquired to see if the account matches up with the Brit OH.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The 53rd Brigade was reduced to the 6RNR and 3/16PR..." What happened to 5th Norfolks, 2nd Loyals, and 2nd Cambridgeshires?
The OH is somewhat confusing about this, and from other sources I have read it appears a lot of brigade fluctuation took place. No specific times are given, but it seems that battalions were being switched in and out willy nilly. Made a small change to the sentence to try and clear this up without going too much into it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1/5SF ? Who are they then? (5th para "Battle of Singapore" section). Same later on for 1CR.
Addressed, thanks for the catch. The full name was initially in the text, but I moved it and other info to the note and forgot to clarify in the main body.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last para same section: is "dis-positioned" a word?
Depends :P I have changed it to deployed :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two quote boxes are, I think, too long. If their contents are important, then maybe they can be worked into the narrative, and just the meat of what they say left as one or two sentences in a quote box? Certainly, the Percival quote is not referenced in the main narrative, so the quote box kinda hangs out there on its own without any link to the narrative.
I found the two quotes to be very interesting as they full of hyperbole and referencing a fight to the death; something the troops didn't, and were not really expected to as seen from the consensus of commanders to surrender. Personally, I think they highlight the duality of the situation. But, I see your point, and will see about integrating them better.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article really needs a copyedit, but would not suggest doing that until its close to completion in all other respects.
Once my collaborator has made some finishing touches, will do!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job so far, though. Hope this is useful to you. FactotEm (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Given the length of the article, suggest a longer lead
Will addressEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MOS editing will be needed throughout before FAC - seeing some overlinking, overuse of ellipses, etc
Tackled the overlinking. Will request the guild of copyeditors to go over the article before moving into the review process.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the title of the Collier book correct?
Confirmed, based off the front cover of my copy :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Japanese_troops_johore.png: why PD-Japan? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright stuff is really my weak suit here; my justification: points 2 and 3: It was photographed before 1 January 1957, and has sat in a private collection since then it would appear based off the info at IWM. Is this too sketchy, if so I can remove the tag and remove the photo from the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions: Nice work. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

suggest cropping "File:The British Army in the United Kingdom 1939-45 H2702.jpg" to remove the black areas around the border. This will make the image more visually appealing
CroppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"assembled under the command of General Gordon Bennett" --> "assembled under the command of Major General Gordon Bennett"
AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the Australian 2/29th battalion" --> " the Australian 2/29th Battalion" (proper noun)
fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
same as above: " Australian 2/30th battalion"
likewiseEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the entirely of the division had moved" --> "the entirety of the division had moved"
ChangedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't a sentence: "Some elements of the division were able to escape; Harold Atcherley (an intelligence officer with the division) who was ordered off the island".
Made a changeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Each infantry division was to have 72 25-pounder field guns" --> "Each infantry division was to have seventy-two 25-pounder field guns" (the two sets of numerals next to each other is difficult on the eye)
changed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's good to see a high quality article on this luckless, but important, formation. I have the following suggestions:

The awful fate of many of the division's soldiers as POWs should be noted in the lead
"whereas the 18th Division only had four First World War vintage 18-pounder field guns..." It would be helpful to note what point in time these figures apply to
I'm afraid that I can't remember the names of relevant works, but recent Australian literature covering the division states that it was sent to Singapore at least party in response to badgering of Churchill by the Australian Government. Some works argue that all concerned should have known better given that the division clearly should have been diverted elsewhere rather than be sent into Singapore in a state unfit for battle. This adds a different angle to what the Australian official history argues. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick! Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have attempted to address all, bar the last. I have exhausted my sources on the division, but from what you say that would make an interesting addition to the article for completion. If you do remember the names, I believe we should be able to utilize our friends at the Resource Exchange. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]