Talk:2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 23:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Link Northumberland Hussars

  addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• 7th Armoured Division (United Kingdom) should just be 7th Armoured Division.

  fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• When did 5 RTR join?

  I have added the unit in parenthesis after mentioning the arrival of 3rd Arm BdeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest swapping the last two sentences of Arrival in the Middle East

  Switched aroundEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• "One of the division's brigades remained at Tobruk. The other two were positioned well to the north of Benghazi to hold the high ground of the Jebel Akhdar." I presume we're talking about the 9th Division here.

  Correct, I have added the full division nameEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• 1,600 gallons - conversion to litres required here

  Convert template addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would mention that O'Connor was also captured.

  Neame was captured with O'Connor, but neither were captured when the 2nd Division's HQ was overrun.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Stanhope (1979) is not used; suggest moving to Further Reading

  After reviewing the edit history, looks like this had only been used for the size of the Cold War division, which has subsequently been sourced elsewhere. So, I have removed it.

• Citation required for second paragraph of Surrender

  Slight adjustment made, looks like the c/e separated it from its sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Nit picks

• "By the 1930s, the army had established three types of division: the infantry division; the mobile division (later called the armoured division) and the motor division." Replace semicolon with comma

  fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• "It also restricted the mobility of the 2nd Armoured Division which could not move beyond the range of their supply dumps." Comma before "which"

  AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• "The only other major formation available to Neame, was the 9th Australian Division." Delete comma

  RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Marsa Brega" should be "Mersa Brega"

  fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• "The main body followed the cruiser which moved towards the gun battery previously silenced by the 18h Cavalry." Comma before "which"

  addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• "with an alleged 25 percent increase" Should be "per cent"

  While I would usually agree, I have just double checked the source and the author has it a single word.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  "percent" is American English (an Oxymoron if ever was one). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Overall

As a general comment, while I'm happy to pass the article as it is, the blow-by-blow account of the fighting in Cyrenaica would probably be better in its own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I have attempted to action all the changes you have suggested. In regards to separating info, I can totally review the article to cut it down before taking it further. The Operation Sonnenblume article does cover the fighting, although strictly I believe this was only the codename for the deployment of the Afrika Korps, and provide the overview; I tried to keep this article specific to the division's blow by blow account as it was it was its only action.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

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: