Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

This articles covers the history of the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division, from 1920 through to 1945. It was a British Army formation, which was notable for being one of a handful to be converted into a motor division prior to the start of the Second World War. During the war, the division stayed home throughout and ended up being part of the Fortitude deception. The article has previously been worked on by the GOCE, and until recently was rated as an A-Class article. I separated the 1908-1919 history into its own article, in part as this was a stumbling block during the FA review. This new iteration of the article has just passed its GA review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

"The division regained its third infantry brigade, and became the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division" - Maybe use a word other than "became" here, as it was previously that designation, and returned to it.
I think this is probably an issue with the wording of the lede, using the article title in the first sentence. So: 55th (West Lancashire) Division from 1920-~1939; 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division from 39-40; 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division from 40-45 (later title chosen for the article, as it was the name of the div during the most prominent part of this section of its history). Do you have a suggestion to avoid further confusion in the future?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a few tweaks, does this work better now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Create 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division and redirect it here
Article and redirect createdEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"Following the end of the war and through 1919, the division was demobilised" - Give the year the war ended, not everyone's gonna have that background knowledge.
added in the yearEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link Lancashire
link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motor division

"the 6th Liverpool Rifles were retrained and transferred to the RE" - What's the RE? Royal Engineers, right? It needs linked/glossed
Correct. I thought I fixed that previously, looks like I put the link in the wrong place and missed the prior abbreviation! I have fixed this now (hopefully!).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Home defence

The very last paragraph of this section has a lot of repetition of "the division". Eight sentences start with "the division", including four in a row. There's an instance of that phrase in almost every sentence. Is there a way to get some more variety here?
I have made several changes in this regard, does this flow/work better now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better. I might have a few more comments at a FAC for this, but it's A-Class worthy right now. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to pick on here at all, which isn't surprisingly, since this has largely gone through an ACR before. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, i have attempted to address your points above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7

Looks pretty good.

What does "refounded" mean"? Suggest "reformed".

"division" is misspelt in the lead

"This process involved the break up of four-second-line territorial divisions" Suggest "This process involved breaking up four-second-line territorial divisions"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I have made tweaks to the article, per your comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Both images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Most sources used are scholarly. Where they are not they are used judiciously and appropriately. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert

G'day, I reviewed this before the split and believe it meets the criteria, but have the following suggestions for tweaks: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, suggest linking brigade
in the lead, "In 1944, it was earmarked for overseas and combat, but instead was stripped of its assets" -- however, I wasn't quite sure that this was covered in the body. It mentions the higher establishment in the first sentence of the Wind down section, but I couldn't see where it was stated that it was earmarked to be sent overseas...? Suggest potentially explaining why this changed
suggest adding an image in the Wind down and deception section if possible to break up the text a little
in the References Becke is out of alphabetical order
Weinberg probably doesn't need the access
OCLC for Coop?
swap the order of Hogan and Holt
"pp. 4-6" --> endash
no duplicate links, no dab links, the ext links all work (no action required)
all information appears to be fully referenced (no action required)
"brigades of 66th Division" --> " brigades of the 66th Division"? There are a few other instances where you leave off the definite article when referring to distinct units; suggest making this consistent

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.