Talk:47th (London) Infantry Division/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I will review this one following its nomination for GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Initial comments/suggestions: G'day, nice work as always. I have the following comments/suggestions/observations by way of an initial review: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * in the lead mention 1946 as the year it was disbanded (per the infobox)
 * DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * in the lead, link battalion, brigade
 * DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * in the lead, The division, which was established using the motor division concept, was fully mobile --> "The division was established using the motor division concept, and was fully mobile..."?
 * DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * in the lead, aided in the deception and administrative side of Operation Overlord --> seems a little awkward
 * I have reworded and expanded, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * responsible for the completion of training of soldiers who --> "responsible for providing final combat training to soldiers who..."?
 * I have tweaked this sentence, largely along your lines. I have not stated combat, as French only states platoon, company etc level training and a 3-day exercise. I am unsure if this should be inferred specifically as combat training, or if that would be the correct term to use. I will defer to your judgement.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Too easy, your change works from my perspective. (Looks like modern day infantry minor tactics training to me - essentially very basic combat drills. These are generally followed by more complex collective training at sub unit, unit and then formation level). AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the annexation of Sudetenland in --> "the Sudetenland"?
 * TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * came to the Munich Agreement --> "signed the Munich Agreement"?
 * TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * four First-World-War-vintage: not sure about the hyphens here, probably better as "First World War-vintage"
 * DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * authors of The London Rifle Brigade's History of the War: italics for the title of the book?
 * This appears to have been implemented in the recent copyedit, "history of the war" is not the title of the book. I have tweaked this sentence, but do you recommend additional changes to avoid future misunderstandings?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your change looks good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * were transferred to 30th Armoured Brigade --> "to the 30th Armoured Brigade"
 * DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Kelso's prior experience --> "Utterson-Kelso's"?
 * QuiteEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * placed on the lower establishment: can this term (lower establishment), be defined (potentially in a note)
 * The next sentence is potentially the closest sourced statement we have about the lower and higher establishment and difference. For example, Joslen doesn't provide different figures for lower-establishment divisions. French suggests they were supposed to be without or reduced number of certain units, but the OOBs suggest this was not a general across the board definition.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries -- I've tweaked the wording regarding this a little. Please check you are happy with that change. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * more – including Templer—were: inconsistent use of dashes
 * Updated dash template thingyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * were leaked through double agents --> "were deliberately leaked..."?
 * DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * a part of the administrative and organising side of Operation Overlord regarding --> seems a little awkwardly worded
 * I have made a tweak, does it work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that change looks good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * inconsistent caps "lower establishment" v "Lower Establishment"
 * DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Soldiers were given five weeks --> "These soldiers were given..." (to avoid starting two sentences in a row with "soldiers")
 * DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the body just says "corps training" but the lead provides more details ("basic training and their job-specific training") -- probably should be the other way around (more detail in the body, less in the lead)
 * Switched upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Major-General Utterson-Kelso" --> no need for rank at this point as he has already been introduced
 * DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the lead links and mentions the demobilisation process but this doesn't appear to be mentioned in the body of the article specifically
 * Article tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * in the References, Geoffrey, Powell --> Powell, Geoffrey
 * Fixed!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * in the References, is there an OCLC number for the work by Maude?
 * AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * image licencing looks fine, although I'd suggest adding an indicative date to the description page for "File:47th div.svg", outlining when the badge was likely designed
 * I have edited the page to include a range for the designEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ext links all work; there are no dab or dup links (no action required)
 * the article is well referenced (no action required)
 * the Earwig tool reports no copyright violation likely (no action required)

Thank you for the review. I have left some comments above for you, and otherwise actioned your suggestions (hopefully to your satisfaction :) ) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your changes look good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks -- please check you are happy with those changes and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: ✅
 * a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * c. it contains no original research; and
 * d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: ✅


 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✅

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: ✅


 * a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.