Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of British armies in World War II/archive1


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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC).

List of British armies in World War II

 * Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This list has been overhauled to provide a complete list of all British armies raised (real and fictional) that were formed during the Second World War. A member of the Guild of Copyeditors has also given the list the once over.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * Link Battle of the Bulge
 * Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The articles on the Third Army and Fifth Army don't cover these imaginary army at all - should they even be linked?
 * Personally, I think so. Prior to the list being overhauled, only the Fourth Army was included and I would guess that was because its deception efforts were best known. The others are kind of sidenotes in the literature. I have added a small note to both articles.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Half way down the page, the notes column changes from centre-aligned to left and then back again
 * I have left aligned this entire column now. If you think it should be centred, I can do that too.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Imperial War Museum wrote the insignia" => "The Imperial War Museum wrote that the insignia"
 * "The museum noted versions of this initial design exist" => "The museum noted that versions of this initial design exist"
 * "It was intended the Fourteenth Army would" => "It was intended that the Fourteenth Army would"
 * "See below list for complete breakdown." looks weird below the list in question. I would be tempted to just lose these words.
 * "as each division completed its [singular] training and were [plural] fully equipped"
 * "It was envisioned the final territorial division" => "It was envisioned that the final territorial division"
 * I have made changes to hopefully address the above various points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time, review, and comments. I have attempted to address all and welcome any further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D
This article is in good shape. I have the following comments:
 * Can a link to the 13 June 1945 edition of The Times be provided?
 * Not sure if the link would work in the article citation, but if you have access to Gale, it is located here: link. It talks about the Second Army becoming part of the occupation force.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest removing the Third and Fifth Armies from the list and lead given they didn't even exist as deception formations. This might warrant an end note or short section on other armies attributed to the British Army during the war? The article is a bit confused at the moment with these non-existant formations being included in the table. The Germans believed all kinds of weird things about the Allied order of battle due to their dysfunctional intelligence services and Allied deception campaigns.
 * Fair point. I have amended the lede and removed the two armies from the list. I have moved their mention into the note that also includes the British Indian armies.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "It was intended that the Fourteenth Army would be used to land in and liberate British Malaya, but the war ended before that occurred." - the landings did actually occur, just after the Japanese surrender (see Operation Zipper) as it was considered easiest to use the forces assembled for the operation and the prepared plans than to develop new plans at short notice.
 * I have tweaked the wording to include a combat landing (which I believe was the point I was trying to convey) and also noted their peaceful arrival instead (IWM mentions that, so no need for additional sourcing).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Was Malaya Command considered an Army? It was led by a Lieutenant-General and was of equivalent size and structure. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I am not an expert in this area (Far East and army terminology), but the OH War Against Japan describes the command as one that was "designed for the control of a small garrison" and not "adjusted to enable it to cope efficiently with the changed and increased load placed upon it" (acknowledgement that it was not? and that it became one?). It also uses language similar to how Middle East Command (MEC) is discussed, such as exercising authority over multiple geographical locations (at least British Malaya, Thailand, and Borneo - although all its troops were in Malaya) and the RN and RAF linking their commands for the defense of the area. MEC, for example, saw the establishment of a triumvirate of the three branches and oversaw operations from Egypt to Aden etc. I was unable to find mention in the OH of an attempt to form a field army.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time reviewing the article and providing the above comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Those changes look good, and I'm happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Although this nomination has not recieved as many reviews as we often look for, I've reviewed it myself and I'm happy to promote. -- Pres N  00:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.