Talk:History of the British 1st Division (1809–1909)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHistory of the British 1st Division (1809–1909) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2023Good article nomineeListed
October 31, 2023WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 27, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the British 1st Division repulsed numerous French assaults at the Battle of Waterloo including the final main assault?
Current status: Good article

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a formation with a continuous existence.[edit]

TO say the 1st division had a very long history is misleading, since during the C19th there was a succession of divisions formed in the British army in the course of successive campaigns, each of which was identified as the '1st Division' being the first in the order of battle, nothing more.

JF42 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Division's history[edit]

There was an RFC to discuss potential restructures to this and the 1st (United Kingdom) Division articles. However, the RFP ended without any consensus being reached. Rather than the info end-up being buried in the MILHIST archives, the sources have been copied to the latter article's talk page, see: Talk:1st (United_Kingdom) Division#Division's historyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the British 1st Division 1809–1909/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images properly licensed
  • The article title reads strangely to me... "between 1809–1809" should either drop the "between" entirely or change to "between 1809 and 1909. I'd prefer the former as the between seems redundant
    Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set off William Stewart with commas
    FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalize Allied in allied army and link it
    Slight rewording and added a link. The Talavera OOB article calls this formation the Anglo-Spanish Army, although if I am not completely mistaken the British divisions formed part of the Anglo-Portuguese Army. Oman, for example, refers to both. However, in his OOB and casualty section he lists the British as separate to the Spanish with troops detachments in Portugal and elsewhere; the Spanish force is referenced as the Army of Estremadura.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • repulsed several cavalry and infantry attacks suggest "several attacks by cavalry in infantry"
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • where it was reorganised into divisions "they" to agree with the earlier "forces"
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In June, the division operated to trap the elusive operated?
    I have reworded this, but I was just trying to convey they were dispatched after Boer commandos.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • were radically changed reorganised
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got at least one reference that isn't used in the article. Purge them or move them to further reading.
    I double checked them all and could only find one reference, which I have removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay in getting to this and also breaking the links by moving the page (thanks for the fix, Hog!). Thank you for your time, review, and comments. I have attempted to address all the issues you raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a standalone article?[edit]

I don't understand. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the 2nd Division, I did the one article to cover everything approach and it came out at over 100k in size. That division, when compared to this one, was not as active in say the Second World War and was not involved in later conflicts. WP: Size suggests splitting off articles after they pass the 50k mark. So, the primary article for the 1st Division, in this case 1st (United Kingdom) Division article, is already around 40k in size and does not yet really cover the Gulf and Iraq wars. The article covering the world wars is also over 50k already, with little information about their First World War activities and little information about the fighting after Anzio. This article is, likewise, over 50k. Sure, some book citations would be merged if everything came together, but on the whole there is just too much content to provide a decent overview and be squished into one article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by EnigmaMcmxc (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 02:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/History of the British 1st Division 1809–1909; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • This would automatically meet the DYK criteria if it weren't for the fact that it has been more than a month since this was promoted to GA. That being said, this is only because no one has managed to pick up the nomination until now. I'd like a second opinion on this. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By my count it was nominated within 7 days of GA promotion, so that should be fine. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full review needed; article was nominated within seven days of being listed as a GA, and is therefore eligible for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced (as is every paragraph). No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done. Good to go.--Launchballer 08:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_British_1st_Division_(1809–1909)&oldid=1202775974"