Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 2nd Infantry Division was a British Army formation that had an on and off again existence for around 200-years. It fought during the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the Boer War, and both World Wars. It fought in numerous famous battles, including playing a vital role in the rout of the Imperial Guard at the end of the Battle of Waterloo. Due to it being a forefront in most of the campaigns it fought in, it also suffered heavy losses. In peace time, during the second half of the 20th Century and into the 21st, it went under various role changes: it became an armoured formation, reverted back to an infantry division, and became a training unit. The article has been worked over by the GOCE, although any suggestions for cuts and and wording improvements are always welcome, and it has just passed its GA-review. If you have somehow missed them, there are three sub-articles (unsure if they needed to be in their own sections, or if they right at home in the "see also" section) that supplements this article, with detailed orders of battle, the list of commanding officers, and all Victoria Cross winners.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • File:Battle of Albuhera, by William Barnes Wollen.jpg when was this image first published? Per US law, display does not count as publication.
    After searching, I was unable to find a source that appears to have used this painting until the late 2000s. I have updated the flag to reflect this. Although, I was also able to verify that the painting was created between 1911–1912, so there may be a more appropriate tag?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was really first published after 2003 than {{PD-US-unpublished}} would indeed apply, but it's difficult to guarantee that there was no earlier publication, in which case it would be copyrighted 95 years after publication. To be safe, I would remove it. (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did another search and was not able to come up with any additional info on the painting or if it was published prior. I have hidden it in the article, in case those questions are ever answered, and have removed the US PD tag from the Commons file. I have also replaced it with a new illustration in the article (which I have a verified 1800s publication date for).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sidney Paget00.jpg the license claims publication before 1926, but the publication listed is from the 1990s. When was the first publication? (This similar image[1] is freely licensed). (t · c) buidhe 06:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I tracked down verification of the painting being published in 1900, and have updated the commons page to reflect the sources better.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

Sorry to see this unreviewed for so long. Great subject for an article, not sure if it should have such a wide scope or whether it should be a series of articles, but will let you know that at the end. I'll be doing this in several tranches, I expect. My comments are below:

Lead
  • suggest "The 2nd Infantry Division was an infantry division of the British Army, which was formed and disestablished numerous times between 1809 and 2012. It was originally formed by Lieutenant-General Arthur Wellesley for service in the Peninsular War (part of the Coalition Wars of the Napoleonic Wars), and was disestablished in 1814, but re-raised the following year for service in the the War of the Seventh Coalition."
    Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Military organization#Commands, formations, and units to "formations"
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • does anyone challenge Wyrall's views on divisional lineage?
    Potentially one. I read several sources last year that all made similar points to Wyrall (what they where, or if I used and cited them for other things I am not sure). However, the memorial at York references three out of the five others 2nd Divisions raised in the Victorian Era (Napier's, Newdegate's, and Hamley's).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • move the link to First World War to first mention
    ActionedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link interwar period
    DittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • add that the division remained on the order of battle after WWI
    I have restructured the sentence, so hopefully this is also addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Dunkirk evacuation to "evacuated to the United Kingdom"
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disbanded in Germany, and the 2nd Division was reformed in York, England, in 1983" as an infantry division?
    Post-war is rather outside my scope of knowledge. I believe it was primarily infantry based, with no armor component (a training formation for infantry and engineers, from what I have read). However, I bring this up as it seems "infantry" and "armour" were dropped from titles around this time. Is it correct to describe it as an infantry division at this point?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • instead of Burma, link to Burma campaign
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • add that it was retained on the order of battle after WWII
    AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link York and Cold War
    Links addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "and was most recently disbanded in 2012."
    Tweaked (but I hope they stay that way, the article is too long ;) )EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • work bolded alternative names into the text
    Attempted to do thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleonic Wars
  • for "a single formation" link Military organization#Commands, formations, and units
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "newly formed 2nd dDivision"
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "By October, it was manning redoubts in the Torres Vedra defensive line, near Alhandra"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • shrink the link to pickets to just pickets
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "HoweverDespite this, the division"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "theirhis own flank guard, thus leaving themselves brigade vulnerable."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "While the brigade was engaged in this manoeuvre, and concealed by a blinding hailstorm, 800 Polish lancers had approached the brigade's open flank."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "On 28 October 1811, the division – with attached Spanish cavalry – took part"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the garrison of the nearby Fort Ragusa, which the division occupied, and then secured an important river crossing over the Tagus."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the division failed to fully destroy a bridge."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • explain who Oman is at first mention, ie "Charles Oman, a historian of the Peninsular War,..."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link counterattack
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hill ordered Stewart" when did Hill return to command?
    Hill was now a corps commander, I believe I had edited out this detail. I have added mention. The corps do not appear to be numbered at this point, however.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Note b, John Murrary
    Nice catch, and fixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Napoleon, Emperor of the French, had abdicated..."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "one brigade of the King's German Legion (KGL) – a British unit consisting mainly of expatriate German troops,"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rowland Hill's 2nd Corps" as there is no other Hill mentioned, and he's already been introduced
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "the division's light infantry brigade – under the command of Major-General Frederick Adam – moved forward"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest Hougoumont→Château d'Hougoumont
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the château's defence" as it is a singular possessive noun
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "This, in conjunction with the resistance of the British foot guards"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "advanced towards the La Belle Alliance inn"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "They halted at dusk, which heralded the close of the battle, during which the division had suffered 1,563 casualties."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian era and Reform period
  • say that Varna is on the Black Sea coast
  • mentionedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there any dissenting views regarding the lineage of the 2nd Division?
    Discussion aboveEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sir George de Lacy Evans was given command of the 2nd Division," and after introduction, just use "Evans"
    I was unsure about that previously, but edited accordingly.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • if the division was the British right wing, surely the French were on their right?
    Yes! I think I had meant to write this as on the French's left.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • John McDermond VC bears inclusion in the text, to include his unit and perhaps which brigade of the division he was serving with
    Normally, I would agree and include info. However, the division had ten VC winners during the war; which is a lot of extra names and units. In total, the 39 men earned VCs over the division's history. Their info is found in List of Victoria Cross recipients from the British 2nd Division. Initially, I had a VC section, which just linked to that article. But it has been removed during the various edits.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Second Boer War broke out on 11 October 1899"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • errant comma in "and the Orange Free State, ."
    Thank you, and removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and included the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Divisions"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Highland Brigade (United Kingdom), but could it also be the 3rd (Highland) Brigade?
    Link added and updated. I recall sources referring to it as both the 3rd (Highland) and just the highland. I have included mention of the latter to be consistent with the OOB article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there a link for the 4th Brigade?
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clery, promoted to lieutenant-general"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • links for the "2nd and 5th Brigades"?
    Links addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Buller denied Clery's request for approval to advance further"?
    I would believe so: Doyle wrote "On the aide-de-camp riding up, however, to inquire from General Buller whether the time had come for this advance [to capture Green Hill, that oversaw the position captured by the division]...". It doesn't specify that this was Clery's aide-de-camp, but the overall context is the division requesting permission to advance.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This battle saw the Boers defeated" what battle?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "corps advance"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Pretoria
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Secretary of State for War, St John Brodrick,"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the link to the 3rd Brigade now redundant (if linked above)?
    Opted for the Highland Brigade link above, so left this one alone.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link I Corps (United Kingdom) for 1st Army Corps
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the link to the 5th Brigade now redundant (if linked above)?
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to First World War. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First World War
  • "first Victoria Cross of the war" I am wondering if it is worth naming each one (without information about how it was won, people can click the link for that)?
    Per above discussionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • mention at the appropriate point that 1st Army Corps was renamed I Corps, as you start talking about II Corps. Maybe state what the overall structure of the BEF was at the beginning of the war?
    Left this huge gap here for me to spot the one I haven't done - will address this later.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok for A-Class, but will need addressing before FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed break: I have added in some info in the reform section about Aldershot Command and it forming the basis for I Corps. I have also added a note with the BEF order of battle, for when the article discusses the division moving to France. I reviewed the primary source consulted for the Boer War, and it does not appear to explain what happened to the First Army Corps. I would guess that it too was disbanded, along with the divisions, once its purpose was furfilled.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "the rearguard affair of Le Grand Fayt" as I'm not sure title case is really justified here. Same with "rearguard actions of Villers-Cotterêts"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "It then fought in the First Battle of the Aisne" to avoid repetition of "The division..."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Notably, George V, and the Prince of Wales – the future Edward VIII – , reviewed the division..."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The latter stayed with the division for two days later in the month and reviewed troops in the trenches"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Trench raids were sandwiched between the division's"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Battle of Festubert – part of the Second Battle of Artois, in May, and the Battle of Loos in September–October."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 1916, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "The division entered the offensive on 26 July" otherwise there is confusion about which battle when we have battles within a battle
    Noted, and tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "This effort, alongside the 55th"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "With the conclusion of the Somme offensive" same reason as above
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • per MOS:DATERANGE, use either an en dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both, ie between 27 and 29 April, not between 27–29 April
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October, the new additions to the divisions" which divisions? Or should it just be "division"
    Just the 2nd, removed the s.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the 2nd dDivision, this change took place"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which ended on 20 March"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK, the Battle of Amiens WAS the start of the Hundred Days' Offensive, it didn't lead to it
    Yeah, not sure why I wrote it like this. I havent on other articles. Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "By this point of the offensive, divisional casualties had reached 3,900."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest " the 2nd Division was reformed in Aldershot"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest adding a request for a photograph of the 2nd Division WWI Memorial at Aldershot, which would be a good inclusion for the Inter-war period section
    Do you know how one would go about doing that? I have not done so before.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Second World War, more to follow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • to avoid "The division"..."The division" I suggest "Along with the three other divisions of the BEF, it was based east of Lille."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The general and historian David Fraser wrote that the regular formations"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The division reached the River Dyle without difficulties. Despite achieving tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced the BEF to withdraw the next day."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the fighting had ended" is a bit abrupt. What happened regarding surrender of members of the division?
    I have reworded this section, and noted that the casualties involved killed or captured by the Germans. It looks like only the one notable massacre of 2nd Division prisoners took place.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link History of the Second World War instead of official history
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Burma campaign was the primary theatre of operations where British forces were engaged against those of the Empire of Japan, following their entry into the war in December 1941" sort of ignores the Malayan campaign and fall of Singapore. Suggest adding in a mention of that.
    I have added mention of that, although it was not an attempt to ignore or downplay; just me knowing that those were over by that point, although granted the reader may not have known that.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to undertake combined operations training"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The division ended the war back at Poona."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • say the Kohima War Cemetery is in India
    addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was renumbered toas the 2nd Infantry Division"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "headquarters units"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "It was considered that this would maintain the BAOR's ability to wage" as there are significant questions about whether the structure would have worked
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and an improved ratio of weapons and men" or "and an improved ratio of weapons to men"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would more than likely takeuse"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "anti-tank guided missile-equipped"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link hull-down
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • how many artillery regiments in the restructured division? Pretty important to include the God of War...
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "or a threat made to use tactical nuclear weapons"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • if the war establishment was 14,000, what additional units were to be added, just in generic terms (no. of infantry battalions, armoured regiments and artillery)
    The Cold War British Army is not my forte. From the reading I have done, it is my understanding that the reserves and TA chaps would bring the BAOR units up to full strength. If an entire unit was added, they were generally on the admin or logistic end, so not a full infantry battalion. One source I was looking at was explaining how the regular infantry battalions had an establishment of of around 850, but were around 200 men short; these would be areas the reservists and TA guy would fill in. Granted, that only accounts for 5-600 of the around 5,000 men coming in. I have yet to find anything that outlines it in more detail.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok for A-Class, but will need addressing before FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per our discussion on your talkpage, I have added in some detail about this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • how much SP arty in 2nd Armd Div? regiments-wise?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "four-year tour with BAOR"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with each based around the headquarters of either an armoured regiment or infantry battalion"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The task force approach allowed the GOC to tailor their forces"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • assuming this is a grammatical error, suggest "designed to allow the commander maximum flexibility and [to] take precise account of the operational or tactical task to be achieved"
    I double checked the source, and it is verbatim. I have added in the above suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the loss of one divisional headquarters" as there really wasn't a loss of a division in strength, per se
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • as a training formation, what was its title?
    "2nd Division". I have reworded the opening sentence to note this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1998, the division was 28,500-men strong" not just men
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British Army restructured theirits forces"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in See Also, "British Army Structure Iin 2010"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • you could add |ref=none to the Further reading and External links sources to inhibit anchor ID creation that some scripts highlight

That's me done, finally. In conclusion, I think you have it right in terms of scope, the iterations of the division seem to be interrelated, although the WWII 2nd Armd Div is an outlier, and some sort of hatnote is probably in order. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review and comments. I have started work on these, and have left a couple of comments up top.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, with the exception of adding in some info about the BEF, I have attempted to address all your comments. Those that I have no actioned, I have left replies to.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting for A-Class, the outstanding comments will need addressing to get me over the line at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7 edit

I don't have expertise across the whole of the scope of the article, so I'm going to confine myself to the 20th century.

First World War
  • Reform period: the point here is that the division organisation was changed from two to three brigades, so the number of divisions (which existed mainly on paper anyway) dropped from nine to six.
    I have added in that particularEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no consistency as to whether imperial or metric is used first. Suggest MOS:METRIC for guidance.
    I have gone through the various convert templates, and they should be consistent now: miles to km, and other imperial to metric units.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This resulted in the division's first casualties and first Victoria Cross of the war." How many did it win?
    18, which is now mentioned in that lineEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link trench raiding
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1918, the number of front line infantry within the British Army in France had decreased because of casualties and a lack of eligible replacements, leading to a manpower crisis." There was a manpower crisis, but that's not entirely true. Cabinet withheld reinforcements so they would not be used in another futile offensive. Also: "replacements" is an American term; in the British Army they are "reinforcements".
    I have replaced "replacements" with "reinforcements". As for the point about the withholding of reinforcements. I have taken a quick glance over the literature, and it seems the cabinet withholding troops is a bit of a contentious issue. Perry, for example, notes that the Army Council had notified the cabinet in early Feb '17 that a manpower crisis would arise if heavy fighting continued regardless of what steps were taken. It seems the claim that the manpower crisis was the result of George, did not appear until May '18. Perry seems to suggest that the need to reduce from 12 to 9 battalions came from the cabinet, who had concluded in late '17 that the army was going to be short half a million men and industry close the same in the long term. Perry argued that the cabinet committee (which was headed by George) looked at the various ways to get the army the men they needed before proclaiming the battalion reduction and suggesting limited offensive action in '18. Not sure who the following chap is, but he argues along similar lines and suggests it is not strightforward etc: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2639350 EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the send paragraph of 1918 after fn 137.
    Para splitEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the 2nd division, this change took place in February when three battalions were disbanded." Capital D. Any idea what three battalions were disbanded? There was a prohibition on disbanding regular or first line territorial units.
    I have added a note in to state what the three battalions were. They were all service/new army battalions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second World War
  • "On 26 May, with the BEF completely surrounded" Not completely surrounded.
    RewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fighting on that day provided the division with the dubious honour of having the highest casualties in a single battalion within the BEF." What was the battalion?
    Battalion mentionedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in May, the convoy was ordered to sail for British India because of increasing civil tension there." Link Quit India Movement
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the logistical issues at the time, the division could not be employed in Burma. Instead, the division formed part of the British strategic reserve in Asia. It spent 1942 through 1944 training at its Ahmednagar base." That's not quite true; two battalions participated in the Arakan Campaign 1942–43 debacle
    Per Joslen, the 6th Infantry Brigade was detached from the division for this campaign. I have, however, made mention of this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the First Battle of El Alamein, in July 1942 in the Western Desert, the division was offered as a reinforcement to ensure Axis forces did not enter the Middle East, but no move took place as a result of the successful Second Battle of El Alamein." This sentence and the next are out of chronological order. Move them after "British strategic reserve in Asia".
    MovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, developments around the theater resulted in continued postponements of this operation." That's only partially true; the landing ships were recalled to participate in the Battle of Anzio. Also: "theatre" is misspelt.
    Corrected the typo. I have been able to access Kirky, again for the time being, and have reworded this part although I have not invoked Anzio as Kirby fails to mention that as a specific reason. For example, he writes at several points that shipping availability had always been an issue for India, and suggests that Anakim just kept getting put on the back burner.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. cf Ehrman V, pp 214-223. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In conjunction with the 33rd Indian Infantry Brigade" I would say the 7th Indian Infantry Division here.
  • AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " With the Japanese positions cleared, the division was transported to Calcutta, so it could be used in Operation Dracula—an amphibious assault on Rangoon. However, the city was liberated by other forces and the 2nd Division did not depart for the port." That's not entirely true. The division was withdrawn from Burma to reduce the supply burden.
    I have managed to get a hold of the Burma OH, and have been able to reference thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division was assigned next to Operation Zipper, a planned amphibious landing in Malaya that aimed to liberate Singapore." The division was not on the Operation Zipper troop list.
    Having got access to Kirby, I see that they are not mentioned on the initial landing list. I wonder if the author was loosely referencing a follow-up role (Appendix 5)? I have reworded based off Kirby.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division ended the war based at Poona, India" Delete "India"; Poona has already been mentioned.
    ActionedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-war
  • "The overall aim was to have "fewer formation headquarters overall, and fewer but larger units" That's politician spin. The UK had agreed to maintain a certain number of divisions in Germany, and when the Germans baulked at cutting the numbers, they decided to reduce the size instead.
    Granted that it is political spin, it is a direct quote from the report. I have tried to balance that up with follow-up from historians discussing it. I have done some searches, but I have not been able to find anything about a German reaction to cuts in the 70s. Do you have any leads? I did see some info out there about, what would appear to be, a continued German annoyance at the BAOR shrinking over the previous decades; but nothing, so far, about the reaction to or the run-up to the Mason Review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These task forces were not a reintroduction of a brigade command structure, and they had no logistical responsibilities." Neither did the brigades.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have reworded this, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments and your review. I have attempted to address all points raised, and left several comments above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support edit

Will review this, probably over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 14:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that PM and Hawkeye have made lengthy reviews, ping me after those are mostly completed and then I'll review; I don't want to accidentally work on cross purposes with them. Hog Farm Talk 23:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you all for the reviews and comments. It will be a few days, but I shall be back to tackle them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division fought at the Battle of Waterloo and played an important role in defeating the final French attack of the day, it then marched into France becoming part of the Army of Occupation and was the only British force allowed to march through the French capital of Paris" - either split at the comma or use a semicolon instead
    Sentence splitEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1856, after the conclusion of hostilities, it was stood down" - recommend linking stood down, as its a bit jargony
    Relevant link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thus leaving the vulnerable" - something is off here
    Tweak madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The restructure increased the BAOR to four divisions," - what had it been previously? Wasn't it previously intended to have been four divisions?
    It would seem, based off Isby, that the commitment to maintain four divisions lasted about 4–5 years: "The four-division (three armor, one infantry), post-Korea BAOR was reduced after 1957. Into the mid 1960s Britain's three divisions...". I have noted this in the area you highlightedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That note at the end of the End of the Cold War and into the 21st century section seems to be (at least on my screen) adding extra space to the end of that section, is there a way to remove this
    I have removed the extra spaces, hopefully this should allow it do display more clear?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the key insignia kept until 2012, or did its use end earlier? It's not clear from the article
    I have made some alterations to hopefully clear that up, the answer being yes it was kept.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look fine

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review and comments. Sorry it took so long to get to them (and Hawkeye and Peacemakers!). As you initially requested a ping, sending you a belated one! @Hog Farm:.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

@EnigmaMcmxc: The range and quality of the sources here attest to this article being a labour of love, and are most impressive. I have only minor comments:

  • As noted by other editors above, the sources all appear reliable
  • Only minor tweaks resulting from spot checks
    • Ref 178 (Kirby et al. 1962, pp. 10, 66, 117): Checks out, and makes good use of the source
    • Ref 188 (Kirby et al. 1969, pp. 65, 81, 86): Ditto, but I've tweaked this to one reference per sentence to be more modular to help with future editing
    • Ref 201 (Taylor 2010, pp. 6–7): Checks out, but doesn't say that Mason "authored" this review - it would be highly unusual for a minister to actually personally write something like this (that's what their department is for)
    • Ref 205 (Dodd 1977, p. 373.): Checks out, but the page numbers should be pp. 373-374 to cover this material
  • None of the spot checks revealed any problems with close paraphrasing
  • Connnors, Brendan P (1965). A Short illustrated history of the Second Division 1809–1965 in the further reading section is missing publisher details
  • It looks like some, if not all, volumes of South Africa and the Transvaal War are available on Project Gutenburg, and could be linked.
  • Ditto A History of the Peninsular War
  • The War in France and Flanders 1939–1940 is also online here and should be linked. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 24 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2nd_Infantry_Division_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=1040889237"