Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of commanders of the British 2nd Division/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC).

List of commanders of the British 2nd Division

 * Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the final list to supplement the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article. This list contains all 60+ officers who commanded the 2nd Division over its 200-year history. It has previously been assessed and passed as an A-Class list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank
 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * I added an sronly template to the table caption, since it repeats the section heading.
 * Appreciated!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You've got some work to do on the sort order of the first and third columns. sortname should fix the problems in the third column. You might think sorting order wouldn't be important in the first column ... after all, you've created the table with the proper sort order in the first column to start with ... but one nice thing about a sortable table is that you can sort on two columns if you want to, and if you try that with this table, it won't work. Fortunately, the dts template will make your job pretty easy.
 * I have went in and added the name template, and I *think* I added the correct template for the dates. Hopefully, that is these two points addressed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. For some areas where I haven't kept up with prose standards, I typically wait for other people to do prose reviews, then sign off on their reviews (or not). In this case, I know you want to nominate another list soon, so I'll go ahead and get a support in before the prose review is done ... prose reviews tend to be easy to come by, especially for Milhist articles. The table coding seems fine. I sampled the links in the table.
 * 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
 * 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
 * 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources. The only refs flagged by the UPSD tool are to the War Office, and there's no problem there. Otherwise, the tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
 * 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
 * 4. It is navigable.
 * 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine, but it needs alt text (a few words would be fine).
 * Alt text has been addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 6. It is stable.
 * Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and support. I have attempted to address your concerns above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Drive-by comments
 * The dates do not sort correctly in the first column (currently sorting on that column results in the following sequence: 1 April 1902 > 1 December 1967 > 1 February 1910 etc, which clearly isn't right)
 * The names do not sort correctly in the third column (should sort based on surname) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have just updated the date template, and I think it is working. Based off your edit timestamp, I think you looked at the list a minute or so before I updated with the name templates. So, I think these are addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Chris, I just now checked the date sorting, it's fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome :-) I'll give the article another look later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from RunningTiger123
Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review Pass

 * The sole image in the list (File:Roland Hill 1819.jpg) is freely licenced. It requires ALT text. No major issues with the licencing, so pass for the image review. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alt text was added yesterday, I think? - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "from 1815 through 1818" - we don't say "from [date] through [date]" in British English. Should be "from 1815 to 1818"
 * TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "before being disbanded in 2012 and ending" => "before being disbanded in 2012, ending"
 * TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "when the War of the Seventh Coalition broke-out" => "when the War of the Seventh Coalition broke out"
 * TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "and included a pivotal role" => "and played a pivotal role"
 * TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Everard Wyrall; who compiled" => "Everard Wyrall, who compiled"
 * TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "The division was formed in for the first time" => "The division was formed for the first time"
 * TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note against first Pennefather note isn't a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
 * Same with Lyttleton note
 * Conversely, Monro and Irwin notes are full sentences so need one
 * Grover note needs a full stop
 * Stirling and Kitson notes need full stops
 * Mackay note should not have a full stop
 * I have gone in and amended the above points, as suggested.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The five unknown GOCs have ranks listed, even though their identities are unknown. Do the sources confirm these ranks?
 * No. Technically, someone from the next rank down (as seen via the sourced WWI and WWII sections) took over temporary command until a permanent appointment was made. The cited sources really only identify the gap: X finished his appointment on X date, and then X took over on X date; they do not list the interim temporary CO. I supposed the ranks could be removed? I was hesitant to leave a gap (so to speak), if the article was compared to the Gazette.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's all I found. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and commentsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM
That's enough for a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "ending the division's 203-year history" well, a broken history, which spanned 203 years but with like 75 years of those while it was disbanded.
 * Addressed a few points down, I would imagine.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "The commander, the general..." isn't this sentence true of pretty much every military unit in history?
 * Probably. However, it was asked elsewhere to point out what the GOC actually does.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "and played a pivotal role " I would suggest one more sentence to cover why it was pivotal wouldn't go amiss here.
 * I have added in a couple of extra lines to say what it wasEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Something I've seen recently, the opening sentences of the first para of the lead seem to be a lead for the lead! You don't need all those disband/reform in the opening sentences because you do it with more detail in the next two paras, and by then it feels repetitive.
 * I have reworded the first para, per your suggestion. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On my screen, the infobox just creeps into the "General officer commanding" section and needlessly squashes the table substantially.
 * I have checked on my phone and laptop, and I am not seeing this. Any suggestions on how to resolve this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In sortable tables, linked items are linked every time because after a re-sort, there's no knowing if the linked item appears first.
 * Links added for ranksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 23 Jan 1855 is then followed by 1855 which is then followed by March 1855. Sorting then by "Appointment date" re-organises those.  Get it in the default order to start with.
 * In this case, it is already in the default order. On 23 January 1855, Pennefather was appointed as GOC. At some point later, he was sick and someone held temporary command. At some point in early March, based off the wording in the Gazette, he resumed command. I suppose the these two entries could be removed, and a note added to the initial one to state that he left command of the division on a temporary basis due to being sick? The Gazette does not state who took command in his absence, but does not his 'return to command'.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, what TRM means is that if you click on the sort icon for that first column, the row for the acting commander after Pennefather's 23 January stint jumps above the 23 January row. You need to use a hidden sort key with a date anywhere between 23 January and March to ensure that that row always stays below the 23 January row.  Same for any other row that shows only a year, not a specific date.  Hope that makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably worth having a "number" column as you note that 63 individuals have held the position in the lead.
 * Ah, if this table includes "acting" appointments, they should be identified.
 * All acting appointments are identified as such in the note section. Was you suggesting something else? I feel like the acting commanders would make a bit of a mess of the GOC count, as I do not believe I included them in the 63 count. There also GOCs that had their tenure broken-up by acting commanders due to sickness etc. I see that making a number column look a little messy maybe? Thoughts?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ref 23 needs an en-dash, not a spaced hyphen.
 * ReplacedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and your review. I have acted on most, and left some comments above to get additional feedback before moving forward.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think a number column would still be useful, and you could identify the "acting" commanders through a symbol and a coloured cell.  It may be too much work, so I understand if you don't fancy doing it.  Re: the default order, what I meant was if I sort by date, which I assume the initial order of the table to be, it changes, so my point was that the default chronological order isn't correct per the behaviour of the table.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Re numbers and acting, I have done a mini mock-up here. Would this work to address both points?
 * As for the default order, I am not sure what change I can make to the article. It is manually wrote out to be in chronological order. Are these changes that I can make, to help the filtering behavior or the sortable table?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - I've fixed the 1855 row with this edit. Just replicate that for any other row which doesn't show a full DMY date, using an appropriate "fake" date.  Hope that helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have gone through and added in fake dates as needed, so that should address the sorting issue? I have also added in an initial column that provides a number order/sorts between those who are acting. Do these changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look strong throughout. The link-checker tool flagged one of the links in the reference section as suspicious in terms of whether it works (the Defense Basing Review one), but I clicked on it and it came up just fine. I'd say the source review is a pass. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.