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.
The 61st Division was a 2nd-Line TA division raised at the start of the Second World War. While it did not deploy overseas, it did undertake several varied and interesting roles within the UK. The article passed its GA review back in 2016. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria, and look forward to further refining the article.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I notice you use "ize" instead of "ise", which is fine by me because I understand it's actually a myth that British spelling requires "ise", but make sure you're consistent and be prepared for people to tell you you should use "ise"... ;-)
Ha! This is what happens when a Brit goes and lives in the US; the "ise" slowly becomes "ize"s :P As you say, there may be future arguments of one variation over the other; so now they are all "ise"s :)
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Despite the ongoing efforts and some regiments being able to recruit the required numbers to form new battalions, the whole process had – in the words of historian James P. Levy – "not progressed beyond the paper stage when [the Second World War] began in September." By the outbreak of the war, the division was active... -- these two sentences seem to clash, one implying things were only at paper stage by the start of war, and the next stating the division was active by then.
I guess for consistency you could add a few more notable commanders, since more than one appear to have WP articles.
Having read through the profiles for the other guys, I feel that "notable" would really fall to one of them. I have included Schreiber, although if you think additional ones are required I shall take another look.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Structure and depth of coverage seem fair.
I'll take Nikki's image review as read.
When I get time I'll see about conducting a source review...
Tks, I re-worded a bit but am about ready to support. My only concern is "Historian" instead of "historian", which I know was suggested below -- my understanding is that we mean an occupation, not a title, so the cap looks odd. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
22:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"In the months following the exercise, the division was relegated to 'Lower Establishment' status": do we know why?
I have not been able to establish the reasoning. The sparse sources that mention the division, just mention that it happened without reason why. The IWM merely states the division was stood down to become a training and drafting unit.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
48th (South Midland) Division is overlinked, as is 72nd Brigade (United Kingdom)
"to 'Lower Establishment' status...", "...'Higher Establishment' infantry...", "...and based in 'residue' camps..." and "...fake Fourth Army, and 'travelled'...": I think the MOS prefers double quote marks here
On review, I don't think they are needed around most of those terms and thus I have removed them. In regards to the travelled part, I have amended per your recommendation.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
in the References, "publisher=The Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery Ottawa" --> "publisher=The Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery |location=Ottawa"?
May i ask you why the link of the U.S. V Corps in this line "Atlantic, saw U.S. V Corps (U.S. 1st Armored Division, the 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division, and the British 72nd Infantry Brigade)" goes to the "V Corps (United Kingdom)"? Only one unit is American the other two are British please fix this.
Can you link the unit "10th Battalion" from the Worcestershire Regiment. same type as the "4th Battalion" from the Northamptonshire Regiment.
As far as I can tell, there are no separate articles or lists about battalions etc for the Worcestershire Regiment as there is for the Northamptonshire.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I know, however if you see the link of the "4th Battalion" from the Northamptonshire Regiment is linked to the main page of "Northamptonshire Regiment". Can you do the same to the "10th Battalion" from the Worcestershire Regiment to the main page of "Worcestershire Regiment". (Sorry if i did confused you.)
CPA-5 (
talk)
18:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"For some TA divisions, little progress had been made by the time the Second World War began; for others, they were able to do so within a matter of weeks." Which category did the 61st Division fall into?
I have been unable to find a source that states when the division actually formed. All sources seem to parrot Joslen; the division was active by the time the war rolled around. Any suggestions on how to better bridge the sentence in question with the latter one stating the division was active?
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"On 15 April, Carton de Wiart, as well as the divisional staff, were deployed to Norway, and Major-General Edmond Schreiber assumed command of the division." With a new HQ staff? And what happened to him after Carton de Wiart returned?
Hawkeye7(discuss)20:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Per Joslen, when Schreiber took command he did so with a new staff. Joslen does not state if they remained following the return of the others from Norway. I have also added in a little info on what happened to Schreiber.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Exercise Spartan, the largest military exercise ever held in the United Kingdom. Superlative. Is this covered by the citation to French several sentences later?
It becomes a bit of a problem with long-established units where the length of the list can nearly equal the length of the main body. I'd prefer to get rid of them if the notable commanders are covered in the main body, but it's not a requirement.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
00:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Sort order question: does McMahon go before Mansergh? I'm seriously asking because the von This and McThat and de TheOther often confuse me. All else looks nice in notes & refs.
Lingzhi ♦
(talk)04:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Googling it, I found several college/uni websites that state not to treat Mc as short for Mac; I have reordered the list. I don't recall doing this on purpose, but it did result in an interesting few articles on the subject and finding the absolute wealth of confusion out near on it.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
21:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
O'Halpin, Eunan (2006). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
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.
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.
The 61st Division was a 2nd-Line TA division raised at the start of the Second World War. While it did not deploy overseas, it did undertake several varied and interesting roles within the UK. The article passed its GA review back in 2016. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria, and look forward to further refining the article.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I notice you use "ize" instead of "ise", which is fine by me because I understand it's actually a myth that British spelling requires "ise", but make sure you're consistent and be prepared for people to tell you you should use "ise"... ;-)
Ha! This is what happens when a Brit goes and lives in the US; the "ise" slowly becomes "ize"s :P As you say, there may be future arguments of one variation over the other; so now they are all "ise"s :)
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Despite the ongoing efforts and some regiments being able to recruit the required numbers to form new battalions, the whole process had – in the words of historian James P. Levy – "not progressed beyond the paper stage when [the Second World War] began in September." By the outbreak of the war, the division was active... -- these two sentences seem to clash, one implying things were only at paper stage by the start of war, and the next stating the division was active by then.
I guess for consistency you could add a few more notable commanders, since more than one appear to have WP articles.
Having read through the profiles for the other guys, I feel that "notable" would really fall to one of them. I have included Schreiber, although if you think additional ones are required I shall take another look.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Structure and depth of coverage seem fair.
I'll take Nikki's image review as read.
When I get time I'll see about conducting a source review...
Tks, I re-worded a bit but am about ready to support. My only concern is "Historian" instead of "historian", which I know was suggested below -- my understanding is that we mean an occupation, not a title, so the cap looks odd. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
22:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"In the months following the exercise, the division was relegated to 'Lower Establishment' status": do we know why?
I have not been able to establish the reasoning. The sparse sources that mention the division, just mention that it happened without reason why. The IWM merely states the division was stood down to become a training and drafting unit.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
48th (South Midland) Division is overlinked, as is 72nd Brigade (United Kingdom)
"to 'Lower Establishment' status...", "...'Higher Establishment' infantry...", "...and based in 'residue' camps..." and "...fake Fourth Army, and 'travelled'...": I think the MOS prefers double quote marks here
On review, I don't think they are needed around most of those terms and thus I have removed them. In regards to the travelled part, I have amended per your recommendation.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
01:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
in the References, "publisher=The Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery Ottawa" --> "publisher=The Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery |location=Ottawa"?
May i ask you why the link of the U.S. V Corps in this line "Atlantic, saw U.S. V Corps (U.S. 1st Armored Division, the 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division, and the British 72nd Infantry Brigade)" goes to the "V Corps (United Kingdom)"? Only one unit is American the other two are British please fix this.
Can you link the unit "10th Battalion" from the Worcestershire Regiment. same type as the "4th Battalion" from the Northamptonshire Regiment.
As far as I can tell, there are no separate articles or lists about battalions etc for the Worcestershire Regiment as there is for the Northamptonshire.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I know, however if you see the link of the "4th Battalion" from the Northamptonshire Regiment is linked to the main page of "Northamptonshire Regiment". Can you do the same to the "10th Battalion" from the Worcestershire Regiment to the main page of "Worcestershire Regiment". (Sorry if i did confused you.)
CPA-5 (
talk)
18:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"For some TA divisions, little progress had been made by the time the Second World War began; for others, they were able to do so within a matter of weeks." Which category did the 61st Division fall into?
I have been unable to find a source that states when the division actually formed. All sources seem to parrot Joslen; the division was active by the time the war rolled around. Any suggestions on how to better bridge the sentence in question with the latter one stating the division was active?
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"On 15 April, Carton de Wiart, as well as the divisional staff, were deployed to Norway, and Major-General Edmond Schreiber assumed command of the division." With a new HQ staff? And what happened to him after Carton de Wiart returned?
Hawkeye7(discuss)20:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Per Joslen, when Schreiber took command he did so with a new staff. Joslen does not state if they remained following the return of the others from Norway. I have also added in a little info on what happened to Schreiber.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Exercise Spartan, the largest military exercise ever held in the United Kingdom. Superlative. Is this covered by the citation to French several sentences later?
It becomes a bit of a problem with long-established units where the length of the list can nearly equal the length of the main body. I'd prefer to get rid of them if the notable commanders are covered in the main body, but it's not a requirement.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
00:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Sort order question: does McMahon go before Mansergh? I'm seriously asking because the von This and McThat and de TheOther often confuse me. All else looks nice in notes & refs.
Lingzhi ♦
(talk)04:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Googling it, I found several college/uni websites that state not to treat Mc as short for Mac; I have reordered the list. I don't recall doing this on purpose, but it did result in an interesting few articles on the subject and finding the absolute wealth of confusion out near on it.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
21:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
O'Halpin, Eunan (2006). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
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.