Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

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 promoted by Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

Another of the British Second World War second-line TA divisions. The 46th was sent to France in 1940 as a labour division, and ended up as a front-line unit in the final stages of the Battle of France. Thereafter, it was deployed to Tunisia and fought in several engagements; landed at Salerno and fought two campaigns in Italy; and deployed to Greece during the second stage of the Greek civil war. It returned to Italy in April 1945, too late to take part in the spring offensive. It then marched into Austria, became part of the British occupation force, and assisted in the forced repatriation of Cossacks to the Soviet Union. It was slowly stood down over the following two years, and disbanded when the TA was reformed on a smaller scale in 1947. The article has had the GoCE give it the once-over, and it has also passed its GA review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

Quite enjoying this series on British divisions of World War II. A long way to go though. Comments:

"In April 1939, limited conscription was introduced." What do we mean by "limited"?
So in this context, limited by the confines of the following sentence. However, I think it works easier to just drop that and merge the two. What do you think of the change?
Much better. "Limited" could mean by demographic, duration or duty. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
"Sir John Gort" should be Lord Gort (Had he not been a viscount, he would have been Sir John John Vereker)
UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"3 ft (0.91 m) deep" Use prose on first use of a unit (MOS:UNITNAMES)
The abbreviation has been turned off one that, and another in the same veinEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Home defence" break the second paragraph in twain at "On 22 May"
Para splitEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the division was inspected by George VI" King George VI.
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Operation Avalanche; the Allied invasion of mainland Italy at several points." Avalanche was the attack on Salerno; the others had different code names.
Thank you for that catch! UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes a and f seem to duplicate each other.
RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote g: what about the 16th Airborne Division?
I have updated the prose and noteEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link William Jackson (British Army officer), Charles Whiting
Links addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and ongoing reviews. I have attempted to address the comments made above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - moved to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

Surprised this hasn't gotten more attention, will take a look soon. Hog Farm _Talk 05:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

link Territorial Army in the lead
Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In June, the division took part in Exercise Conqueror, where it opposed an amphibious landing conducted by the United States 1st Infantry Division." - Recommend make it clearer that Exercise Conqueror would have been a training or show exercise, not a battle campaign
Added in that it was a training exerciseEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Again faced by the 26th Panzer Division" - The "again" seems weird, as this is the first time that the 26th Panzer Division seems to be directly named
Looks like I may have confused myself with the earlier reference to the 16th Panzer. Just re-read through the cited pages, and it is the 26th and not the 16th. I have dropped the "again" part, and also added in mention of the German infantry division that the panzer division was supporting. Also went back and verified the earlier 16th wasn't supposed to be the 26th, just to be on the safe side.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add a ref for note I
Citation addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing looks fine

Anticipate supporting; good work here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments, also sorry about my tardy response!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

Background

to annexe the Sudetenland.: To me, annexe is being used as a verb here. Apparently in BrEng the verb is annex? (note, I'm not an expert in grammar, just want to make sure this is correct)
I have lived to long in the US to be able to say what is and isn't a British variant anymore. But, I believe that you are quite correct. E droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 March, Secretary of State for War,: looks like an extra space after the number and unsure of whether title case is appropriate given prime minister and chancellor is lower case elsewhere.
Removed the extra space, and dropped the capsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The War Office had envisioned that the duplicating process,: should that be duplication?
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial service and transfer to France

that had been dispatched to Europe already.: seems that this would read better if "already" was ahead of dispatched.
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell the abbreviations RE and AMPC aren't necessary as these units aren't used again in the article.
Removed themEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
as well as aiding in the construction of railway sidings in that area.: because aid has already been used earlier in the sentence, suggest: "as well as helping construct railway sidings in that area."
Updated per your recommentationEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
chief of the Imperial general staff: just checking lower case is intentional here RE my previous comments regarding titles.
Stray capital removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This placed the division below their establishment...: "its establishment"?
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Home defence

Major-General Desmond Anderson (previously general officer commanding (GOC)... the abbrev for GOC should used on first mention in formation section. It is also a dupe link here.
Updated and extra link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anderson was promoted to Lieutenant-General...: this should be lower case here as not being used as part of his title.
Lower case used nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
by Lieutenant General Dwight D. Eisenhower.: I see no hyphen is used here in the rank but perhaps that is because it is an American rank?
Correct. To the best of my knowledge, British ranks used hyphens all the way through to the 1990s, whereas the US ranks never used them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The final paragraph of this section discusses the proposed landings in North Africa - I feel that the early part is perhaps excessive detail for this article and could be trimmed a bit.
I have cut down and reworded this para, hopefully didn't cut anything vitalEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian campaign

During September, drafts were brought in to replace the division's casualties.: because the previous sentence seems to refer to the 7th Armoured Division (mentioned in the sentence prior), probably should specify here that you are referring to the 46th.
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lieutenant Gerard Norton earned the VC for his actions during this fighting.: a suggestion only, but perhaps mention his actions in light detail as a footnote?
Brief overview addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Major-General Stephen Weir, a New Zealand Army officer,...: strictly speaking he was a New Zealand Military Forces officer, as the New Zealand Army did not officially exist until later. Also, he was the only officer of a Dominion army to lead a British division during the Second World War. While probably excessive for the main body of the article, is that worth a footnote? The source for that fact is online (see his article, I expanded it a few years ago).
Note addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Captain John Brunt earned the VC: perhaps a footnote with some light detail of the action. Again, only a suggestion.
Small addition made to give an outlineEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to action them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I have added my support. Zawed (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Will do this. Hog Farm _Talk 13:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources all look reliable for what they are citing
Does the Story of the 46th Division have an actual author?
I have checked the OCLC, the IWM, and MLRS books that does reproductions of old out of print British histories. None of then mention who the author is, other than divisional staff. No author is mentioned in the version that I have, either. There are a couple of forwards, neither acknowledge who the author is. The last one, by Stephen Weir, stated "This little book ... has been produced by the Division about the Division and for the Division." That is about as close as we get to knowing who actually wrote it, unfortunately. I have seen several books from this period in the same situation, and after the fact someone has managed to figure out who the author is. However, that hasnt happened (to the best of my knowledge) for this work.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; just wanted to check Hog Farm _Talk 16:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm _Talk 15:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

@EnigmaMcmxc: Sourcing and licencing for all images is spot-on, with the images all being PD. However, I have a question about a caption:

How do we know that File:The British Army in Italy 1943 NA6622.jpg depicts the 6th Battalion, Lincolnshire Regiment? The IWM source states only that the photo shows "Universal carriers drive ashore from a tank landing ship (LST) at Salerno, 8 September 1943". If another source identifies these vehicles, please add a citation to the article (and tweak the caption at Commons) Nick-D (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of sources identify the men and carriers belong to the regiment, whereas the IWM does not. I have added in one such source, and I have also updated the file on the commons. Thanks for taking a look over the article, and catching this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks great. Nick-D (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.