Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2nd Canadian Division during World War II


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article still meets A-Class criteria - TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

2nd Canadian Division during World War II

 * Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)


 * A-class review/2nd Canadian Infantry Division

I am nominating this article for an A-class reappraisal as unfortunately I don't believe it meets the criteria anymore (specifically based on its referencing). Ultimately, I would like to try to bring the article back up to A-class status, but if that is not possible, I believe it should be demoted. It was nominated for FAR in early 2015, and although I attempted to help deal with the issues raised in that review, I did not have access to the sources that its original author (now inactive) had. As such, it was ultimately demoted from FA and I believe that unless someone can deal with these issues it will need to be demoted from A-class also.

I am also concerned about the article's scope, as it appears to largely duplicate 2nd Canadian Division. The original editor, I believe, felt that the two formations were distinctly separate; however, the way that the 2nd Canadian Division article is written now indicates differently, so I think we also need to consider how this article is meant to nest with the other one. I guess there are a couple of options here. Potentially this one could be re-titled "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II" to make it clear that the article is limited in its scope, but there are also other options that could potentially be considered while we are here. I invite any interested parties to comment on the article's compliance with the A-class criteria, and to list anything that they believe should be fixed. If I have the ability to rectify these issues, I will, but ultimately unless someone can assist with referencing, I won't be able to fix issues in that area. Thank you to all who stop by. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have resolved some of the issues above now: AustralianRupert (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have managed to resolve a few more of the missing citations, and have also added mentions of the commanders into the narrative as they were missing before. There are still a couple of citations required though. These are my recent edits:.
 * I still wonder if this article should be re-titled to "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II". If so, I think some mention of the units lineage to the First World War should potentially be added to the Formation section, and then potentially its later incarnations to the final section. Thoughts?
 * Firstly as a Canadian (want to establish my inherent bias outright) I want to thank you for working on this article. I have no expertise in the area of ground units, but after looking at the articles mentioned, I would agree that the title should be changed. The basic units are essentially the same just one is an overview while the other deals with a distinct period in the unit's history. Llammakey (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by, Llammakey, I've managed to find the remaining citations now. These are this morning's edits:  G'day, Ian, as you took part in the FAR, would you be able to take a look at the recent changes and provide an opinion if it is still up to A-class standard. I think I've resolved most of the major issues. Equally, would you mind offering an opinion about whether this article should be moved to "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments: Keep
 * Recent changes by Rupert and Llammakey have certainly been an improvement.
 * I added one more "citation needed" tag, is this possible to be resolved?
 * Added, thanks I'd missed that one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are the figures of the number pers that served in the division, and total casualties etc available in the sources? If so adding them would make the article more comprehensive.
 * I haven't come across anything, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Google snippet view indicates that Maple Leaf Against the Axis: Canada's Second World War - Page 74 might have something, but I can't quite make it out, and my efforts to get the book sent to me here in Darwin have been thwarted, so I can't check. I wonder if any of our North American editors might have access to it? G'day, do either of you by any chance have access to this book? If so, would you mind checking it to see if it lists consolidated casualty numbers for the 2nd Canadian Division during World War II? Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have ordered it in on inter-library loan. There's a copy at the U of A, so it might only take a couple of weeks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a copy local to me, I can get it Monday/Tuesday. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thank you, both. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there isn't much there. The division "suffered a disproportionate number of casualties - the highest casualty ratio in the Canadian Army - from the time it returned to combat in early July 1944 until the end of the war." Anywhere else in the book to look? The index wasn't helpful and I don't have access to the Google snippets. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look, Nikki. I've added something along those lines: My snippet view doesn't give me much, either, unfortunately. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Does that address your concerns regarding casualties? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day yes if that is all that is available in the sources then no worries. Good work to those that tracked this down. Anotherclown (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with AR's comments about the scope of the article and the need to rename it. Anotherclown (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved to keep now due to the work that's been done so far. One more minor point re the infobox - the "part of" / "command structure" field currently lists what army the division was part of; however, I though it was customary for us to place the next higher formation in this field (i.e. in the case of a division this would normally be corps-level). Should this be amended? Template:Infobox military unit has some guidance but isn't really specific so I'm just posing the question. Anotherclown (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes you are right. It seems the division was re-assigned about six to seven times, serving with no less than five different corps (British and Canadian), so my concern is that the infobox would become too cluttered. I've tried to add a little more on the corps to the body, now, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good mate. Anotherclown (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment First sentence "North of Rhine" section, "rested from" ambiguous Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Comment: would you mind doing an image review on this one? I've gone through and tried to correct any issues that I could see, but it would probably be best if someone else could take a look, too. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments -- thanking Rupert for the ping:
 * So far I've just gone through the article at a very high level but on that basis I think it actually looks better than when it passed ACR the first time -- well done. I would need to go through it more to offer a final opinion, will try to do so in due course.
 * I agree in principle with renaming to distinguish from the overarching 2nd Canadian Division article, OTOH if "2nd Canadian Infantry Division" was its official name in WWII and at no other time then technically that does distinguish it. The alternative in that case would be calling this "2nd Canadian Division during World War II" (no "Infantry") -- do you see where I'm coming from? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "2nd Canadian Division during World War II" would be fine with me, so long as we made "2nd Canadian Infantry Division" a redirect to it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections to moving the article to 2nd Canadian Division during World War II (so that it is more clearly a sub article of 2nd Canadian Division) and leaving 2nd Canadian Infantry Division as a redirect? This would make it consistent with the approaches adopted for the 1st Canadian Infantry Division, 3rd Canadian Infantry Division and 4th Canadian Infantry Division links which all redirect to article titles without "Infantry" in the name and cover both the World War I and World War II histories together. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per my comment just above, that all works for me -- tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support move Llammakey (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I support the move as proposed. I am no expert in the lineage of the Canadian army, so in the absence of one to provide us with advice I think we have to go with common sense (or at least uniformity). Anotherclown (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I notice that you move protected 2nd Canadian Infantry Division (in 2010) with the rationale of move protecting it as a featured article. Given that it has been demoted from FA and there appears to be some consensus to move the article, would you be adverse to having this protection removed and the article being moved "2nd Canadian Division during World War II"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected the page; please feel free to move it to whatever name you would like. NW ( Talk ) 16:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, I have moved the article now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've adjusted the wording with this edit: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Stacey 1995, p. 39" missing reference or (more likely, I think) typo; harv-family or sfn citations would have been helpful not only for catching this, but for linking notes to refs. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thank you for pointing that out. The original editor chose not to use sfn or harvnb, so WP:CITEVAR applies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get genuinely irate when people flout CITEVAR. But if you post on talk and wait two weeks or so (or as long as the thread breathes), it isn't flouting. If you want to do that, that is. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "planned American offensive got underway". Did the US get started late, or did they start on time but progress was slow? Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've adjusted the wording and merged the paragraph as it seemed a bit small by itself. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest scaling up the map
 * File:Lesser_badge_of_the_Canadian_Army.svg: what's the copyright status of the original design?
 * File:2_Canadian_Infantry_Division_patch.png isn't sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nikki, I've added PD-Shape to the formation patch, and removed the badge (as I'm not sure of the original copyright). I've also scaled up the map. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I believe that this article is probably good enough to keep its A-class assessment now. Are there any objections to closing this now? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Without having gone through the article in detail, I see no prima facie reason not to; Rupert and others have done solid work, the issue of the problematic title has been resolved, everything is cited, and structurally it looks better than it has in a long time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.