The article was kept by DrKiernan ( talk) 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC). reply
This is a 2005 FA whose major contributor is no longer editing. There is uncited text, citation needed tags, and red harv ref errors. It doesn't look like it should be too hard to clean up, if anyone speaks welding.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
17:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
Spangineer, if you can finish the citations, I think this can be closed without a FARC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Move to FARC to keep the process on track; three weeks in, citation needs still.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
09:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
reply
Comment: This looks saveable so I'm giving it a go (which means I am recused on this one). I addressed the remaining {{ cn}} tags by rewriting the last paragraph of the Development section and adding cites to a couple of new sources. See anything else that needs work, SandyGeorgia? Maralia ( talk) 05:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this featured article for review because:
I hope that the article can be improved to current FA standard. Thank you. Forbidden User ( talk) 17:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment: The information in Tie-ins shouldn't be difficult to source. As for Characterization, it's quite a long section (my background is in video games, and I'd be laughed out of FAC if I nominated an article with this level of cruft), so the unsourced information could easily just be snipped. Tezero ( talk) 03:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I guess I will fix this myself. Feel free to close. Forbidden User ( talk) 17:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Delegate comment: Forbidden User , how is this going? It looks like there's still a referencing tag on one section. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I have now, heh. Okay, I will vote...
keep...
but would prefer the first paragraph of Tie-ins be bolstered with citations if at all possible. There are also some passages I'd rather see written differently, e.g. "This acts as part of Will Turner's arc, in which Sparrow tells him a pirate can be a good man, like his father" (whose?), "At World's End was meant to return it tonally to a character piece" (return what?), but IMO nothing worth removing FA status over.
Tezero (
talk)
21:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
I will enter a begrudging Keep because the glaring issues have been addressed, and no one has entered further commentary after three weeks. But, I suspect this article will be back at FAR soon, unless Curly Turkey, who did most of the prose cleanup, keeps it watchlisted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria 01:15, 12 January 2015.
I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails multiple FA criteria, and there are unaddressed {{ context}}, {{ leadtooshort}}, and {{ Missing information}} tags from October 2014. The edition that passed for FA wasn't perfect either, but I will grant that the criteria was less demanding back when it was promoted back in July 2006. Right now, here is how it compares against the FA criteria:
With the above being said, this would take considerable work to even meet GA criteria in its current condition. I doubt it can be salvaged. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree with Snuggums on this. There have been tags at the top of the article's page since October and very little has changed since then. Some have said that they are prepared to help others, but others have not come forward. Time to move on. EddieHugh ( talk) 18:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by User:Nikkimaria 15:03, 6 January 2015 [1].
Featured Article 2nd Canadian Infantry Division was merged (apparently after little discussion) with 2nd Canadian Division on 30 May 2013, and as a result fails on 2c at the very least. Discussion initiated on article talk page last year to either undo the merge or validate it and improve the current article has produced no consensus and the result remains well below FA standard. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
I was having a hard time keeping up with the discussion of this article over at
WT:FAC, and am just now seeing the links and discussion. I find this
May 27, 2013 version, with indication of a merge on
May 30, 2013. The version of May 27 does not look to me like an automatic demotion, I am not seeing a clear 2c deficiency, meaning the revert merge may have been incorrect and should be reverted (merging away a Featured Article should not happen outside of FAR).
More troubling is that I have yet to find any discussion of the original merge (where is it?). I don't see one on the original article talk page, and the merge discussion on the target page is from a different article ( Talk:2nd_Canadian_Division#Merger proposal), and the discussion of the merge on that same page of this article is inconclusive. Unless someone can come up with something else, it looks like either a) the merge should be reverted, or b) we should get MilHist folks to evaluate whether May 27, 2013 version, just before the merge, is demotable.
If it's clearly and seriously deficient, I can understand dispensing with the bookkeeping of a FAR (considering a year and a half has elapsed) and demoting, but unless I'm missing something, that seems to be a bad precedent (demoting an article because of a faulty merge).
Whatever more knowledgeable MilHist folks think is fine, but if the FAR is to proceed, the listing needs to be reinstated at WP:FA and re-added to the tally; if the article is to be speedily demoted, that would be a first ... no problem, but as of now, this article is not listed at FA, so just to keep the books in sync before month-end, we have to go with either/or. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)I think that this needs a FAR as I can see inadequate sourcing (the Order of Battle, forex) and rather cursory coverage of the division's role in various battles. At 22K, the pre-merge article isn't overly large and, to my mind, the decisive vote for any merge is how the Canadian Army itself treats the history of the(se) division(s). If it treats them as two iterations of the same unit then we merge, if not then they're separate articles. As the Canadians haven't raised a division-sized unit since WW2 we'd probably need to see how they treat the history of the various infantry brigades that have been in service.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
(another ec) This needs to be sorted by knowledgeable MilHist folks ... here is what the FAC nominator said on the FAC.It is of no relation to the 2nd Canadian Division. In WWI, they didn't specify division type, whereas in WWII the 1st Canadian Army fielded both infantry and armour divisions. As for the divisional artillery and such, there was no specified organization for each division in the early days of the war; they simply relied on an overarching corps artillery and engineers that were not attached to the actual division. Hope that answers your question. Cam ( Chat) 06:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Noting Sandy's comments above, this article is clearly not of featured status. In the event that the World War I and World War II units of this name are considered separate by historians, military lineage experts, etc, the article is fundamentally mistaken. If the units are the same, the coverage of the division's World War I service is woefully inadequate. The "Present day" section is also obviously not even close to the standard required for FAs. Overall, I agree with Nikkimaria's view that the article should be delisted immediately if it remains in its current form. Nick-D ( talk) 10:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Considering that, I suggest we post-haste Revert merge and redirect, then proceed with FAR to evaluate soundness of the original article. I am concerned that people are looking at the new article, rather than the FA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Stale discussion, and some comments based on a misunderstanding of which article we are reviewing. So, unless someone disagrees, I shall revert the undiscussed merge, so that this discussion and the WP:FA page are not pointing at a mess. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC) reply
In 1941, the Toronto Scottish Regiment was transferred from the 1st Division to become the machine-gun battalion of the 2nd Division. Around the same time, the 8th Reconnaissance Regiment (14th Canadian Hussars) was raised from 2nd Division personnel supplemented by reinforcements from Canada...
When the division was not engaged in coastal-defence duties or unit training, formation-level training took the form of increasingly larger exercises. Exercise Waterloo, conducted from 14–16 June 1941, was the largest in the United Kingdom to date, with I Canadian Corps counter-attacking an imagined German sea and air landing. Exercise Bumper, held from 29 September to 3 October, was larger still, involving 250,000 men. These exercises tended to concentrate on traffic control, communications, and logistical concerns, and were of little practical value to the infantry.
On 30 December 1941, the Calgary Highlanders introduced "battle drill" to the division. This new type of training emphasized small unit tactics as well as "hardening" training through use of live ammunition, slaughterhouse visits, and obstacle courses, and was adopted throughout Commonwealth forces stationed in Britain.— Article
DrKiernan ( talk) 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC) replyIn 1941, the Toronto Scottish Regiment were moved from the 1st Canadian Division to become the Machine Gun battalion of the Second Division. As well, the 8th Reconnaissance Regiment (14th Canadian Hussars) was created from 2nd Division personnel and reinforcements from Canada...
When the division was not engaged in coastal defence duties or unit training, formation level training took the form of increasingly larger exercises. Exercise WATERLOO conducted 14-16 June 1941 would be the largest in the United Kingdom to date, with I Canadian Corps counter-attacking an imagined German sea and air landing. Exercise BUMPER from 29 September 1941 to 3 October 1941 was larger than WATERLOO, involving 250,000 men. These exercises tended to concentrate on traffic control, communications and logistical concerns and were of little practical value to the infantry.
On 30 December 1941, the Calgary Highlanders introduced "Battle Drill" to the Division. This new type of training emphasized small unit tactics as well as "hardening" training through use of live ammunition, slaughterhouse visits, and obstacle courses, and was adopted throughout the Army.— Source given in the article: canadiansoldiers.com/organization/fieldforces/casf/2nddivision.htm
More than two weeks-- Move to FARC. Regardless what is determined about canadiansoldiers.com (what makes that a reliable source?), this article needs to be !voted in or out. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
This article was a 2006 promotion, and it has remain relatively unchanged in the eight years since then. It was written before Chavez rose to "prominence", and although well written and well cited, is now out of date. Many new sources have been written since 2006. See, for example,
See also the unsigned commentary at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page#2006. The article needs an update to comply with 1b and 1c, and potentially 1d.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Move to FARC, two weeks, no action whatsoever. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by User:Nikkimaria 19:40, 21 January 2015 [12].
This is a 2005 FA that has not been maintained. There is considerable uncited text, the article (data) is outdated, and there are numerous MOS issues to be addressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Move to FARC, two weeks, nothing happening. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Not a single edit since listed at FAR, but I will wait a week before declaring Delist. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by DrKiernan ( talk) 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC). reply
This is a 2005 FA whose major contributor is no longer editing. There is uncited text, citation needed tags, and red harv ref errors. It doesn't look like it should be too hard to clean up, if anyone speaks welding.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
17:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
Spangineer, if you can finish the citations, I think this can be closed without a FARC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Move to FARC to keep the process on track; three weeks in, citation needs still.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
09:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
reply
Comment: This looks saveable so I'm giving it a go (which means I am recused on this one). I addressed the remaining {{ cn}} tags by rewriting the last paragraph of the Development section and adding cites to a couple of new sources. See anything else that needs work, SandyGeorgia? Maralia ( talk) 05:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this featured article for review because:
I hope that the article can be improved to current FA standard. Thank you. Forbidden User ( talk) 17:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment: The information in Tie-ins shouldn't be difficult to source. As for Characterization, it's quite a long section (my background is in video games, and I'd be laughed out of FAC if I nominated an article with this level of cruft), so the unsourced information could easily just be snipped. Tezero ( talk) 03:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I guess I will fix this myself. Feel free to close. Forbidden User ( talk) 17:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Delegate comment: Forbidden User , how is this going? It looks like there's still a referencing tag on one section. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I have now, heh. Okay, I will vote...
keep...
but would prefer the first paragraph of Tie-ins be bolstered with citations if at all possible. There are also some passages I'd rather see written differently, e.g. "This acts as part of Will Turner's arc, in which Sparrow tells him a pirate can be a good man, like his father" (whose?), "At World's End was meant to return it tonally to a character piece" (return what?), but IMO nothing worth removing FA status over.
Tezero (
talk)
21:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
I will enter a begrudging Keep because the glaring issues have been addressed, and no one has entered further commentary after three weeks. But, I suspect this article will be back at FAR soon, unless Curly Turkey, who did most of the prose cleanup, keeps it watchlisted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria 01:15, 12 January 2015.
I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails multiple FA criteria, and there are unaddressed {{ context}}, {{ leadtooshort}}, and {{ Missing information}} tags from October 2014. The edition that passed for FA wasn't perfect either, but I will grant that the criteria was less demanding back when it was promoted back in July 2006. Right now, here is how it compares against the FA criteria:
With the above being said, this would take considerable work to even meet GA criteria in its current condition. I doubt it can be salvaged. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree with Snuggums on this. There have been tags at the top of the article's page since October and very little has changed since then. Some have said that they are prepared to help others, but others have not come forward. Time to move on. EddieHugh ( talk) 18:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by User:Nikkimaria 15:03, 6 January 2015 [1].
Featured Article 2nd Canadian Infantry Division was merged (apparently after little discussion) with 2nd Canadian Division on 30 May 2013, and as a result fails on 2c at the very least. Discussion initiated on article talk page last year to either undo the merge or validate it and improve the current article has produced no consensus and the result remains well below FA standard. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
I was having a hard time keeping up with the discussion of this article over at
WT:FAC, and am just now seeing the links and discussion. I find this
May 27, 2013 version, with indication of a merge on
May 30, 2013. The version of May 27 does not look to me like an automatic demotion, I am not seeing a clear 2c deficiency, meaning the revert merge may have been incorrect and should be reverted (merging away a Featured Article should not happen outside of FAR).
More troubling is that I have yet to find any discussion of the original merge (where is it?). I don't see one on the original article talk page, and the merge discussion on the target page is from a different article ( Talk:2nd_Canadian_Division#Merger proposal), and the discussion of the merge on that same page of this article is inconclusive. Unless someone can come up with something else, it looks like either a) the merge should be reverted, or b) we should get MilHist folks to evaluate whether May 27, 2013 version, just before the merge, is demotable.
If it's clearly and seriously deficient, I can understand dispensing with the bookkeeping of a FAR (considering a year and a half has elapsed) and demoting, but unless I'm missing something, that seems to be a bad precedent (demoting an article because of a faulty merge).
Whatever more knowledgeable MilHist folks think is fine, but if the FAR is to proceed, the listing needs to be reinstated at WP:FA and re-added to the tally; if the article is to be speedily demoted, that would be a first ... no problem, but as of now, this article is not listed at FA, so just to keep the books in sync before month-end, we have to go with either/or. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)I think that this needs a FAR as I can see inadequate sourcing (the Order of Battle, forex) and rather cursory coverage of the division's role in various battles. At 22K, the pre-merge article isn't overly large and, to my mind, the decisive vote for any merge is how the Canadian Army itself treats the history of the(se) division(s). If it treats them as two iterations of the same unit then we merge, if not then they're separate articles. As the Canadians haven't raised a division-sized unit since WW2 we'd probably need to see how they treat the history of the various infantry brigades that have been in service.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
(another ec) This needs to be sorted by knowledgeable MilHist folks ... here is what the FAC nominator said on the FAC.It is of no relation to the 2nd Canadian Division. In WWI, they didn't specify division type, whereas in WWII the 1st Canadian Army fielded both infantry and armour divisions. As for the divisional artillery and such, there was no specified organization for each division in the early days of the war; they simply relied on an overarching corps artillery and engineers that were not attached to the actual division. Hope that answers your question. Cam ( Chat) 06:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Noting Sandy's comments above, this article is clearly not of featured status. In the event that the World War I and World War II units of this name are considered separate by historians, military lineage experts, etc, the article is fundamentally mistaken. If the units are the same, the coverage of the division's World War I service is woefully inadequate. The "Present day" section is also obviously not even close to the standard required for FAs. Overall, I agree with Nikkimaria's view that the article should be delisted immediately if it remains in its current form. Nick-D ( talk) 10:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Considering that, I suggest we post-haste Revert merge and redirect, then proceed with FAR to evaluate soundness of the original article. I am concerned that people are looking at the new article, rather than the FA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Stale discussion, and some comments based on a misunderstanding of which article we are reviewing. So, unless someone disagrees, I shall revert the undiscussed merge, so that this discussion and the WP:FA page are not pointing at a mess. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC) reply
In 1941, the Toronto Scottish Regiment was transferred from the 1st Division to become the machine-gun battalion of the 2nd Division. Around the same time, the 8th Reconnaissance Regiment (14th Canadian Hussars) was raised from 2nd Division personnel supplemented by reinforcements from Canada...
When the division was not engaged in coastal-defence duties or unit training, formation-level training took the form of increasingly larger exercises. Exercise Waterloo, conducted from 14–16 June 1941, was the largest in the United Kingdom to date, with I Canadian Corps counter-attacking an imagined German sea and air landing. Exercise Bumper, held from 29 September to 3 October, was larger still, involving 250,000 men. These exercises tended to concentrate on traffic control, communications, and logistical concerns, and were of little practical value to the infantry.
On 30 December 1941, the Calgary Highlanders introduced "battle drill" to the division. This new type of training emphasized small unit tactics as well as "hardening" training through use of live ammunition, slaughterhouse visits, and obstacle courses, and was adopted throughout Commonwealth forces stationed in Britain.— Article
DrKiernan ( talk) 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC) replyIn 1941, the Toronto Scottish Regiment were moved from the 1st Canadian Division to become the Machine Gun battalion of the Second Division. As well, the 8th Reconnaissance Regiment (14th Canadian Hussars) was created from 2nd Division personnel and reinforcements from Canada...
When the division was not engaged in coastal defence duties or unit training, formation level training took the form of increasingly larger exercises. Exercise WATERLOO conducted 14-16 June 1941 would be the largest in the United Kingdom to date, with I Canadian Corps counter-attacking an imagined German sea and air landing. Exercise BUMPER from 29 September 1941 to 3 October 1941 was larger than WATERLOO, involving 250,000 men. These exercises tended to concentrate on traffic control, communications and logistical concerns and were of little practical value to the infantry.
On 30 December 1941, the Calgary Highlanders introduced "Battle Drill" to the Division. This new type of training emphasized small unit tactics as well as "hardening" training through use of live ammunition, slaughterhouse visits, and obstacle courses, and was adopted throughout the Army.— Source given in the article: canadiansoldiers.com/organization/fieldforces/casf/2nddivision.htm
More than two weeks-- Move to FARC. Regardless what is determined about canadiansoldiers.com (what makes that a reliable source?), this article needs to be !voted in or out. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
This article was a 2006 promotion, and it has remain relatively unchanged in the eight years since then. It was written before Chavez rose to "prominence", and although well written and well cited, is now out of date. Many new sources have been written since 2006. See, for example,
See also the unsigned commentary at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page#2006. The article needs an update to comply with 1b and 1c, and potentially 1d.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Move to FARC, two weeks, no action whatsoever. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by User:Nikkimaria 19:40, 21 January 2015 [12].
This is a 2005 FA that has not been maintained. There is considerable uncited text, the article (data) is outdated, and there are numerous MOS issues to be addressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Move to FARC, two weeks, nothing happening. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Not a single edit since listed at FAR, but I will wait a week before declaring Delist. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply