This article is about the British 23rd (Northumbrian) Division, which was raised during the Second World War. This was a second-line formation that was sent to France, during 1940, to provide unskilled labour for rear-area duties and it was promised that they would not to see combat. Once the Germans broke through the Ardennes and crossed the Meuse, the unprepared division was thrown onto the frontline and subsequently mauled. Evacuated at Dunkirk, it returned to the UK where it was broken up as part of a restructuring of the British Army. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentsSupport by PM
I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have little to add:
after introducing it as the British Army, stick with that capitalisation throughout
"34,500 militiamen" does this mean that these men were already serving in the TA? Or should it just say "34,500 men"?
These were the first men to be conscripted, civilians brought into the regular army for a period of six months per the
Military Training Act 1939. The intention was for them to go into the reserve and civilian life after their six months, but war broke out and they were turned over to the expanding TA. The term militiamen being used to describe those conscripted and to distinguish them from regulars.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
"being so transferred at a time" seems odd, why would they be transferred at the same time, when they were to be transferred when ready?
Per Gibbs, the plan was to deploy TA divisions (as whole formations, and not being broken up) as they completed their training and were assigned equipment along the following timeline assuming no issues arose:
The regular army deployed within 6 weeks; 10 TA divisions sent in three waves in the 4th, 5th, and 6th months of the war; the remaining 16 TA divisions sent in two waves in the 9th and 12th month.
"thereby alleviating the strain on the logistical units" this doesn't follow, adding more men to the BEF would put more strain on the loggies, perhaps the strain on the existing engineers and pioneers?
This worries me a bit, I can't see how adding more men would reduce strain on the various logistical corps, it would increase the strain if they didn't bring their own logistical units.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry about the delays, and quite right: the sources are only talking about the strain on the pool of pioneers and workers, not the logistical side of things. I have edited the sentence.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
20:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I assessed this at ACR. Quite a bit has been done to the article since then. All of which has improved it. All I have is the trivia below.
"To boost morale, provide additional labour and guards for the rear echelon of the BEF and score political points with the French Government and military" Suggest a comma after BEF to avoid possible confusion over using "and" twice.
"creating new units based around an initial cadre of just 25 officers and men" Could we replace "units" with either 'battalions' or brigades' as appropriate? I am assuming that one of them is.
Briefly, for the moment, it is a completed doctoral thesis, which can be used. It has not been used as a primary source, it largely been used for the author's analysis in a largely neglected area.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
13:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
From what I can tell, at present no secondary source is quoting Jones. His commentary on the state of the territorial training level is on par with other sources, just more specific to the topic at hand; i.e. French (2001) talks about this in more general terms, and Smalley (2015) talks about this with specific regards to the 12th Division. Numerous sources discuss the BEF manpower shortage in regards to engineers and pioneers etc. Jones - so far - appears to be the only one who outright states the arrival of the three divisions did little to rectify the situation. His is an analysis of a primary source, which I cannot locate other sources discussing or quoting. The issue is one that most other sources glance over.
Unfortunately, "contains analysis not found elsewhere" is not a synonym for "reliable source". I'd suggest minimizing the extent to which this source is relied upon.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
02:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I have commented out the quote from Jones, and left a note that it can be reinserted at a latter date once it meets WP:RS. I have also made a few edits to reduce the reliance on the source. Do you believe further efforts need to be made at present?
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
21:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That seems a fair point. I have attempted, without success, to get access to Drewienkiewicz's actual work. The page referenced is a mixture of Jones' argument, partial Drewienkiewicz quotes, and paraphrasing. I have removed it.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
22:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)reply
First line territorial formations would create a second First line needs any hyphen.
I understand the logic for them. Joslen does not use them when detailing the first and second lines. I have, however, gone and added them in.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I see a lot of second lines without hyphens shouldn't they have hyphens?
Thank you for your review, I have made the changes you have suggested. I have also left a comment above, about the first and second line changes.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @
Laser brain:: Just trying to stay on top of this. The original website links are long dead. Each commons page though, has archive links to the original source. Are these suitable, or should the maps be removed from the article? Other than that, are there any other issues that need to be addressed? Regards
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
21:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Ah! Makes perfect sense now, I have commented out as I am not familiar enough with how the way back machine works to get additional information on the maps in order to support the license.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
14:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Okay, with that said. I did some playing around and was able to access the following parts of the archive website. At this point, it would be a case of advise from you guys on how to proceed:
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @
Laser brain:: Just another follow-up, to avoid this review stagnating and no promotion being made ;) Can you advise on how to proceed from here? With the above links, are the maps okay to use? Do we insert these links onto the commons pages? Or should the maps just be commented out? Regards
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
16:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @
Nikkimaria:, thank you Nikkimaria for the links and comment on licensing. I have tweaked the Commons page to link to archive pages for the original map and atlas source page, and also included the current active links (which I failed to find when previously looking!). I hope this resolves this issue?
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
17:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)reply
This article is about the British 23rd (Northumbrian) Division, which was raised during the Second World War. This was a second-line formation that was sent to France, during 1940, to provide unskilled labour for rear-area duties and it was promised that they would not to see combat. Once the Germans broke through the Ardennes and crossed the Meuse, the unprepared division was thrown onto the frontline and subsequently mauled. Evacuated at Dunkirk, it returned to the UK where it was broken up as part of a restructuring of the British Army. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentsSupport by PM
I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have little to add:
after introducing it as the British Army, stick with that capitalisation throughout
"34,500 militiamen" does this mean that these men were already serving in the TA? Or should it just say "34,500 men"?
These were the first men to be conscripted, civilians brought into the regular army for a period of six months per the
Military Training Act 1939. The intention was for them to go into the reserve and civilian life after their six months, but war broke out and they were turned over to the expanding TA. The term militiamen being used to describe those conscripted and to distinguish them from regulars.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
"being so transferred at a time" seems odd, why would they be transferred at the same time, when they were to be transferred when ready?
Per Gibbs, the plan was to deploy TA divisions (as whole formations, and not being broken up) as they completed their training and were assigned equipment along the following timeline assuming no issues arose:
The regular army deployed within 6 weeks; 10 TA divisions sent in three waves in the 4th, 5th, and 6th months of the war; the remaining 16 TA divisions sent in two waves in the 9th and 12th month.
"thereby alleviating the strain on the logistical units" this doesn't follow, adding more men to the BEF would put more strain on the loggies, perhaps the strain on the existing engineers and pioneers?
This worries me a bit, I can't see how adding more men would reduce strain on the various logistical corps, it would increase the strain if they didn't bring their own logistical units.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry about the delays, and quite right: the sources are only talking about the strain on the pool of pioneers and workers, not the logistical side of things. I have edited the sentence.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
20:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I assessed this at ACR. Quite a bit has been done to the article since then. All of which has improved it. All I have is the trivia below.
"To boost morale, provide additional labour and guards for the rear echelon of the BEF and score political points with the French Government and military" Suggest a comma after BEF to avoid possible confusion over using "and" twice.
"creating new units based around an initial cadre of just 25 officers and men" Could we replace "units" with either 'battalions' or brigades' as appropriate? I am assuming that one of them is.
Briefly, for the moment, it is a completed doctoral thesis, which can be used. It has not been used as a primary source, it largely been used for the author's analysis in a largely neglected area.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
13:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
From what I can tell, at present no secondary source is quoting Jones. His commentary on the state of the territorial training level is on par with other sources, just more specific to the topic at hand; i.e. French (2001) talks about this in more general terms, and Smalley (2015) talks about this with specific regards to the 12th Division. Numerous sources discuss the BEF manpower shortage in regards to engineers and pioneers etc. Jones - so far - appears to be the only one who outright states the arrival of the three divisions did little to rectify the situation. His is an analysis of a primary source, which I cannot locate other sources discussing or quoting. The issue is one that most other sources glance over.
Unfortunately, "contains analysis not found elsewhere" is not a synonym for "reliable source". I'd suggest minimizing the extent to which this source is relied upon.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
02:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I have commented out the quote from Jones, and left a note that it can be reinserted at a latter date once it meets WP:RS. I have also made a few edits to reduce the reliance on the source. Do you believe further efforts need to be made at present?
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
21:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That seems a fair point. I have attempted, without success, to get access to Drewienkiewicz's actual work. The page referenced is a mixture of Jones' argument, partial Drewienkiewicz quotes, and paraphrasing. I have removed it.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
22:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)reply
First line territorial formations would create a second First line needs any hyphen.
I understand the logic for them. Joslen does not use them when detailing the first and second lines. I have, however, gone and added them in.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I see a lot of second lines without hyphens shouldn't they have hyphens?
Thank you for your review, I have made the changes you have suggested. I have also left a comment above, about the first and second line changes.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @
Laser brain:: Just trying to stay on top of this. The original website links are long dead. Each commons page though, has archive links to the original source. Are these suitable, or should the maps be removed from the article? Other than that, are there any other issues that need to be addressed? Regards
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
21:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Ah! Makes perfect sense now, I have commented out as I am not familiar enough with how the way back machine works to get additional information on the maps in order to support the license.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
14:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Okay, with that said. I did some playing around and was able to access the following parts of the archive website. At this point, it would be a case of advise from you guys on how to proceed:
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @
Laser brain:: Just another follow-up, to avoid this review stagnating and no promotion being made ;) Can you advise on how to proceed from here? With the above links, are the maps okay to use? Do we insert these links onto the commons pages? Or should the maps just be commented out? Regards
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
16:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @
Nikkimaria:, thank you Nikkimaria for the links and comment on licensing. I have tweaked the Commons page to link to archive pages for the original map and atlas source page, and also included the current active links (which I failed to find when previously looking!). I hope this resolves this issue?
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
17:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)reply