Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of orders of battle for 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) 00:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC).

List of orders of battle for the British 2nd Division
This is the third sub-article that was created to support (and shorten) the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article, although the second to make it here. The 2nd Division was founded during the Napoleonic Wars, and also fought in the Crimean War, the Second Boer War, and both the First and the Second World Wars. This is a list of the orders of battle, in potentially collapsible tables, for each of these wars. Each section provides orders of battle for each war, and some additional information such as a brief overview, strengths, equipment used etc. Per the suggestion from buidhe, I have skipped over an initial run at A-Class. Look forward to the comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Eddie891
 * When I click on the 'hide' button, nothing happens. What's the point of it?
 * They worked on my laptop, but did not display on my phone. I had hoped to keep the tables to allow readers to minimize them to help navigation, but that does seem to have worked. I have removed the tables entirely, and replaced each with a subsection. I have tested this on my laptop, and it looks a little funky compared to what I am use to seeing. However, the tweaks help with viewing on the phone. Thoughts?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "An order of battle is defined as" defined by who? Alternatively, the quote could be rephrased into wiki-voice
 * "An order of battle was" but it is now? Why the past tense?
 * "Elements of brigades or the brigade themselves could be changed, as could the adding or removing of divisional assets such as artillery. " not sure this sentence works-- could you tweak it or explain how it does
 * " with the formation that was formed " Would it be possible to avoid a form of form twice in such close succession?
 * I have made various tweaks to the lede with these four points in mind.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Our article on the division says it was re-raised in the 1990s. Why no mention of this in the list article?
 * Largely this is due to the lack of reliable sources that discuss the division's order of battle during the Cold War period through to the 2010s. So, with that in mind, I restricted the article to OOBs that would correspond with the wars the division fought in. I had wanted to avoid stating that outright, as similar language had been flagged as something that was not needed. However, I have added in an extra line on the end of the lede, based off your comment. Does this work? Or, suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * otherwise prose seems reasonable. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lost track of this one. I'm satisfied to support Eddie891 Talk Work 01:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank
 * Just dropping by to say ... I added some dashes per MOS. (I'm not positive about the dashes I added to the titles in the refs ... people used to insist on that per MOS, but maybe things have changed over time.) Hang in there ... things are a little slow right now at FLC for everyone. I'm more used to reviewing tables at FLC ... I'm unsure of what to do with this format, but as soon as you get another support, I'll come take another look and see if I can help. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that I've been eliminated from the Wikicup, I'm more comfortable doing a half-baked review here (they tend to frown on those at the Wikicup). I'll be back when I'm finished preparing my next nom. I won't be doing a prose review ... my guess is that you won't need another prose review at this point, but if someone disagrees, you can always solicit one at Milhist. - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * FLC criteria:
 * 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, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems in the References section (but this isn't a source review).
 * 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 images seem fine, and they add a lot to the page. (Disclaimer: I have no clue about copyright issues for insignia and flags, but I trust Parsecboy's review below.)
 * 6. It is stable.
 * I'm more used to working with tables at FLC, so I can't comment on formatting and structure, and I'm not comfortable doing a prose review here ... but that shouldn't be an issue here since you've got prose reviews already, and it should be easy to get another one if you need one.
 * With those caveats ... Support, well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments That's all I have on a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Be consistent with re-linking things after the lead, eg you do relink British Army but not division.
 * I have made another pass, and added a few linksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Any images that could be included to brighten up the volumes of text?
 * I have added in several photos and paintings, but tried not to overwhelm with them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * During this period, ... during this period. - repetitive.
 * Tweaked a thingsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Capitalisation of "brigade" seems inconsistent.
 * If I have not missed any examples, I believe all use of capital letters are when they are proper nouns. In the 1810–1811 section, for example, I have not opted for any capitals as the brigade were not called the "First Brigade" etc. at that point. During that period, they were named after the commander and the list of who they are is not complete, and it would duplicate a lot of info. If that is not the case, can you highlight what I have missed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2nd Division[13][14] - is this supposed to be a sub-heading?
 * The article started off with tables, with the table title with the source info. When the tables were removed, I left the title name with the source. It was not intended to be a subheading. The various "2nd Division" could be removed and the sources duplicated after the brigade name? i.e. "The division's 1st brigade:" and "The division's 2nd brigade:" What would you advise?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is "5/60th Regiment" same as "5th Battalion, 60th Regiment"?
 * It is, and I have updated to include "5th Battalion"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Page ranges should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.
 * I believe I got them allEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "pp. 496 and 513" -> "pp. 496, 513"
 * UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this article linked from the "Divisions of the British Army" template? I'm not seeing it and if not, the template shouldn't be there.
 * Template removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and review. I have addressed a few of the issues you raised above and left a few comments. I will make another pass on the links and language soon, and try and find some images.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Formatting
 * Her Majestys Postal Office should probably have a location like the rest
 * I am glad you caught that, and I have no idea why I typed it like that. I have just added the location, and fixed it to Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You have some publishers linked but not others, should be one way or the other for all publishers
 * I have removed the links
 * Retrieval dates from Wyrall are probably uncalled for as the book is already published and won't be changing, no issues if you still want to keep them though
 * Good point, and removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliability
 * First-rate sourcing


 * Verifiability
 * No issues here Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and review. I have tried to address the points you raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Image review
Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All images are appropriately licensed.
 * Can we make the depiction of Waterloo a bit larger? It's a fairly detailed image and it's difficult to make anything out at the current size. I'd suggest using the "upright=1.x" parameter (play with the decimal point to find what looks best - I usually do between 1.3 and 1.5 for most cases, but have gone so far as 2.5 in some cases)
 * Thank you for looking over the article, and the above comments. I have updated the image, and after a couple of reviews I have opted for 2.5 so to get a decent look at the painting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks much better to me, nice work on the list. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.