Talk:2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 23:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  23:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Link Northumberland Hussars
 * addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 7th Armoured Division (United Kingdom) should just be 7th Armoured Division.
 * fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When did 5 RTR join?
 * I have added the unit in parenthesis after mentioning the arrival of 3rd Arm BdeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest swapping the last two sentences of Arrival in the Middle East
 * Switched aroundEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "One of the division's brigades remained at Tobruk. The other two were positioned well to the north of Benghazi to hold the high ground of the Jebel Akhdar." I presume we're talking about the 9th Division here.
 * Correct, I have added the full division nameEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1,600 gallons - conversion to litres required here
 * Convert template addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would mention that O'Connor was also captured.
 * Neame was captured with O'Connor, but neither were captured when the 2nd Division's HQ was overrun.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Stanhope (1979) is not used; suggest moving to Further Reading
 * After reviewing the edit history, looks like this had only been used for the size of the Cold War division, which has subsequently been sourced elsewhere. So, I have removed it.
 * Citation required for second paragraph of Surrender
 * Slight adjustment made, looks like the c/e separated it from its sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Nit picks
 * "By the 1930s, the army had established three types of division: the infantry division; the mobile division (later called the armoured division) and the motor division." Replace semicolon with comma
 * fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "It also restricted the mobility of the 2nd Armoured Division which could not move beyond the range of their supply dumps." Comma before "which"
 * AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "The only other major formation available to Neame, was the 9th Australian Division." Delete comma
 * RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Marsa Brega" should be "Mersa Brega"
 * fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "The main body followed the cruiser which moved towards the gun battery previously silenced by the 18h Cavalry." Comma before "which"
 * addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "with an alleged 25 percent increase" Should be "per cent"
 * While I would usually agree, I have just double checked the source and the author has it a single word.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "percent" is American English (an Oxymoron if ever was one).  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Overall

As a general comment, while I'm happy to pass the article as it is, the blow-by-blow account of the fighting in Cyrenaica would probably be better in its own article. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  00:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I have attempted to action all the changes you have suggested. In regards to separating info, I can totally review the article to cut it down before taking it further. The Operation Sonnenblume article does cover the fighting, although strictly I believe this was only the codename for the deployment of the Afrika Korps, and provide the overview; I tried to keep this article specific to the division's blow by blow account as it was it was its only action.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: