Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 10 August 2019 [1].

18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British 18th Infantry Division, which was raised during the Second World War and went on to fight in the Battle of Singapore. The article has previously been nominated twice, the last time back in April. At that point, the review stalled over FAC 1a issues. The article has since been edited by GOCE, and other changes have been made in an effort to overcome this last hurdle.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Alt text, disambig, external links etc are fine. 11:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "after the re-emergence of Germany" I think that this means something like 'after the re-emergence of Germany as a significant military power' or similar. If so, it may be best to say so.
    I see the issue with this sentence. I have currently phrased it as "European Power", as Germany also regained it's political clout during this period. If this doesn't work, I think we can reword the entire thing to something along the lines of "...following the rise of the Nazi party..."?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
European power is fine.
  • "training in Scotland, redeployment to the North West" Needs an 'and' before "Redeployment".
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reinforce the British Army in North Africa to show the Dominions" Optional: "show" → 'demonstrate to'.
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 53rd Brigade was sent to Singapore, before it" Optional: "before" → 'from where'.
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Background it may be worth half a sentence or so explaining for the uninitiated what the Territorial Army was. Or, better, IMO, move most of the footnote which does this up into the main text.
    I moved part of the footnote that provides a brief explanation, and made a tweak to the note itself. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does.
  • "(aided by an increase in pay for Territorials, the removal of restrictions on promotion which had hindered recruiting, construction of better-quality barracks and an increase in supper rations)" Optional: replace the parentheses with commas; insert 'the' before "construction".
    "I made the latter change. To me, without the parentheses it wouldn't work and would need to be two sentences so: "The plan was for existing units to recruit over their establishments, and then form second-line divisions from cadres which could be increased. This process would be aided by an increase in pay for Territorials, the removal of restrictions on promotion which had hindered recruiting, the construction of better-quality barracks, and an increase in supper rations." Preference? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be different, but its your article and it is perfectly comprehensible as is.
Re-looked at it, and made a change. Does this still work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 18th Infantry Division became active on 30 September 1939; its units had formed, and were administered by the parent 54th (East Anglian) Infantry Division." I think that this needs a 'prior to', as in 'The 18th Infantry Division became active on 30 September 1939; prior to this its units had formed and been administered by the parent 54th (East Anglian) Infantry Division.'
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 18th Division was also composed of" Why "also"?
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supporting division troops" Insert 'and' before "supporting". Optional: "division" → 'divisional'.
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 18th Division had little required equipment" Is there a clearer way of expressing this?
    I believe I have made a suitable change hereEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Much better.
  • "On paper, an infantry division should have had" Delete "On paper". Optional: "had" → 'been equipped with'.
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and 47 of the required 307 Boys anti-tank rifles" insert 'only' before "47".
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and other parts of England" Delete "other" or replace "England" with 'United Kingdom' or otherwise rephrase; Scotland and Wales aren't parts of England.
    I have switched around the sentence around. The division moved around England, as well as Scotland and Wales. Quite rightly, not aiming to imply that the latter two are part of England.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Japanese had pushed Allied forces south through Malaya" Reads a little oddly. Perhaps 'the Japanese had forced Allied forces to retreat south" or similar? (I think that we can take "through Malaya" as read.)
    I have went through the suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 11 January, Kuala Lumpur fell". Optional: 'On 11 January, Kuala Lumpur, the Malayan capital,fell'
    I have added this in, although noted that it was the capital of British MalayaEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the British and Indian troops were moved between the defile and causeway" I don't follow this. Does it mean 'the British and Indian troops were moved to between the defile and causeway'
    I have to relay on my fellow editor Keith for this part, as I do not have access to Woodburn Kirby. From what I can see via Google Books snippet view, it appears to be based off the following:
"The attack on Bukit Pelandok also failed, and the enemy remained in possession of the defile. Duke then disposed the Norfolks and the Punjabis in defensive positions between the defile and the causeway and ordered 2nd Loyals"
Hopefully, this will help clarifyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that you need to add "to". (Otherwise the natural reading is either that they moved from the defile to the causeway, or that they were already between the two and moved to another position between the two,)
  • " Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival (GOC Malaya Command)" Optional: commas rather than brackets may work better. Similarly elsewhere, including "(including the 2CR and 5RNR)".
    Switched per your recommendationEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "been blocked by strong Japanese positions and retreat south. Comma after "positions".
    Comma addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Caption: "– Arthur Percival, press statement end of January." Remove the full stop.
  • DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the division was committed piecemeal to the defence" I am unsure what the division was being committed to. The defence of Singapore city? It was already on the defensive in a general sense.
    Reworded to "...committed piecemeal in the effort to stem the Japanese advance."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearer.
  • Footnotes e and f. I am not sure why this information is in footnotes, it seems entirely appropriate that it go in the main text.
    They previously were part of the main text. I believe it was me who moved them to the notes, in an effort to streamline the sentence. Suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weell. To my eye you have quite a bit of information in footnotes or bracketed out. It is not a deal breaker, but it potentially breaks up the flow of a nicely written article. Footnotes b, c and d - fine. But take "The 6RNR was to be reinforced by the depleted 3rd Battalion, 16th Punjab Regiment (3/16PR) and the untried 2nd Battalion, Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire) (2LR) from the 9th Indian Division ... " You could have footnoted out the bit in brackets, but you didn't and IMO the flow is the better for it.
Similarly, to me the article would flow better with something along the lines of 'The 5th Battalion, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment was taken from the division and assigned to the 1st Malaya Infantry Brigade. Two ad hoc formations were created: Tomforce from the divisional reconnaissance battalion, the 4th Battalion, Royal Norfolk Regiment, the 1/5th Battalion, Sherwood Foresters and a battery of the 85th Anti-Tank Regiment, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Lechmere Thomas; and Massy Force from 1st Battalion, Cambridgeshire Regiment (1CR), 4th Battalion, Suffolk Regiment, the Indian 5th Battalion, 11th Sikh Regiment (5/11SR), and various other units including artillery and 18 light tanks, under the command of Brigadier Tim Massy-Beresford. The rest of the division remained in its sector.' But if you don't like that, the way it is still meets all of the FA criteria.
A wonderful suggestion, which I have implemented.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inflicting over 600 casualties in the process for the loss of 165 men" "in the process"; "for the loss": one is superfluous. Suggest 'inflicting over 600 casualties for the loss of 165 men' or similar.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice work. Impressive. See what you think of my comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, your review, and your comments. I have acted upon most, and have left comments for the ones that I have not yet addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Getting late, so I shall return to this tomorrow. Nothing so far to cause me any concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few additional changes per your comments, and several changes per comments from PM below.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A fine piece of work. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, and also at FAC before, and it is in great shape. Cognisant of the criticisms that were made last time it was at FAC, I have gone through it again looking for improvements that could be made. I have a few:

  • link division (military) for "TA divisions"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link en cadre for cadres
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of parentheses for substantive info, per (aided by an increase in pay for Territorials...) Suggest breaking this down into a couple of sentences, as long as the thread continues, no continuity will be lost "...supper rations." is a natural place for a full stop, then slightly expand the following sentence
    I have made a change. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 34,500 20-year-old→34,500 twenty-year-old, to avoid the awkward combination of totals and age in numerals
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • supporting divisional troops→divisional support troops
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think counties should be linked at first mention in the body, for non-Brits, also East Anglia
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • during the Norwegian Campaign after their landing at Åndalsnes→after their landing at Åndalsnes during the Norwegian Campaign
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The TA would join regular army divisions in waves, what does this mean, by battalions, brigades?
    I made a change to the sentence to try and make this more clear. To assist, this the exact quote from the source:

"The new programme was as follows: (a) To send the Regular Army ... in the first six weeks. (b) The first ten Territorial Divisions ... in the fourth, fifth and sixth months. (c) The last sixteen Territorial Divisions to be similarly ready int he ninth to twelfth months."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who has succeeded Chamberlain on 10 May 1940, had grown concerned..."
    Switched up per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • when we start mentioning the battalions of the 53rd Brigade, I realised that the orbat of the division should be provided down to battalion level at the point it was created. I would do this after the Formation and home defence section and include the abbreviations for the battalions therein. This will also simplify later mentions of battalions.
    I have added that in at the beginning of the article as suggestedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be I Battalion, 5th Guards Infantry Regiment, Imperial Guards Division?
    I am not familiar with Japanese nomenclature, so will defer to your judgement on this. I have made the suggested change.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Bakri link Bukit Bakri
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in general, there is inconsistency throughout with using the definite article before a unit abbreviation, sometimes "the 2LR", sometime just "5RNR". In military writing, dropping the definite article is usual in my experience, but I'm unsure of what to do on WP. Just be consistent.
    I have dropped the definite article throughoutEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Pontian Kechil
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the map of Singapore should be scaled up to |upright=1.3 at least, too small currently
    scaled upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comma after "On 11 February, Tomforce"
    comma addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link 5th Division (Imperial Japanese Army)
    Link already present: "It was later established that the Japanese 5th and 18th Divisions" :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • with supplies (food, water and ammunition) running low→with food, water and ammunition running low
    Switched upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the "one-down" rule, I expected to be told who the brigadiers were, at least during the Malaya/Singapore period, was Tim Massy-Beresford one of them?
    I made a few changes to attempt to address this, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

I carried out the sources reviews for both of the archived noms, and in each case gave a clean bill of health. Nothing appears to have changed meantime – no issues with links, formats, quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • reinforcing Operation Crusader by Middle East Command as planned Try "as planned by Middle East Command"
  • That's all I've got on a first reading. I'll give it another go in a day or two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment, and look forward to additional ones to further develop the article. I have tweaked this sentence, as it supposed to be pointing out that the division had been dispatched originally to reinforce Crusader.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Zawed[edit]

This looks in great shape - the only comment I would make is in the final section: "...however, the commanders agreed on 15 February...". I find the use of commanders to be a little vague; perhaps Malaya Command is more explicit? Zawed (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wigmore does not state who the "area commanders" are (Pervial held a conference, which based off the source included brigadiers providing the tactical situation on their front; but does not state if it was all brigadiers, if divisional commanders were there etc), but the final decision was made by Percival. So I have tweaked the article to reflect he decided.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

I've requested an image review, as it doesn't seem that issues raised by Nikkimaria in previous nominations were resolved. Please let me know if that's not accurate. --Laser brain (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:
OKish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/18th_Infantry_Division_(United_Kingdom)/archive3&oldid=910284853"