Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 15:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Images appropriately licensed
- Their captions generally need to lose their full stops.
- It was eventually deployed for combat, in May 1940, when it was dispatched to France and fought in the Battle of France before being withdrawn to the UK in June during Operation Aerial. awkward, maybe split it up?
- Better, but lots of "then"s. I don't think that so many are necessary because the dates keep things in chronological order for the reader. And I'd suggest that Then, in May 1940, the division was deployed to France and then fought in the Battle of France. is actually misleading as it suggests that the division was sent to France before the invasion, rather than in response to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- until 1944. In May 1944 redundant year
- four infantry and one mobile division Should be plural. Suggest reversing the order to allow for that
- operating in the north-east of the country Shouldn't this be the north-west?
- Down to initial desert fighting, more later--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review and comments, so far. I have attempted to address them all. Regarding the north-east, Georges was in command of the French 1st Army Group that initially was concentrated on the Franco-Belgian border. The subsequent fighting took place in the Somme department, before the retreat west to get back to the UK. NE seems appropriate, although I have seen most sources describe this area just as northern France.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- According to Michael Carver, a general, historian who fought in the battle ?
- Looks like some words were missing here! He is a former general and a historian. But, I just removed that so it reads "Carver, who fought in the battle," which is more concise and clear.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Better, but I'd suggest that you specify his qualifications as some random bloke who fought in the battle doesn't necessarily have a lot of credibility--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Does my most recent tweak work better? If not, any suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Good enough. I'd suggest linking the rank, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Does my most recent tweak work better? If not, any suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Better, but I'd suggest that you specify his qualifications as some random bloke who fought in the battle doesn't necessarily have a lot of credibility--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like some words were missing here! He is a former general and a historian. But, I just removed that so it reads "Carver, who fought in the battle," which is more concise and clear.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Lumsden held animosity towards Messervy this is kinda passive. Howabout a simple "resented" or even "felt"?
- Tweaked to your initial suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Lumsden quarrelled with his superior Lieutenant-General Willoughby Norrie to have his division, which now contained the majority of the army’s armoured forces, to be relieved after weeks of continuous action. awkward
- I have made a tweak to this, does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Defence analyst Charles Heyman, has stated excess comma, although I think that the man obviously hasn't consulted Joslen! I'm not really sure than this is necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hopefully, I I'll be able to address the remainder of your comments later today. Regarding Heyman, I was unsure if this should be added or not since he is pretty much the only one who makes such a claim. I think I initially added it as a note before working it into the text. It was partially a bit of a leftover from the initial update to the 1st Division and the 1st Armoured Division articles, as there was a lot of confusion on when both were founded (which has now been ironed out). With that said, I can remove this (just wanted to provide a little context first).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have moved this to the talkpageEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your further comments, I have attempted to enact them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Everything else looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hopefully, I I'll be able to address the remainder of your comments later today. Regarding Heyman, I was unsure if this should be added or not since he is pretty much the only one who makes such a claim. I think I initially added it as a note before working it into the text. It was partially a bit of a leftover from the initial update to the 1st Division and the 1st Armoured Division articles, as there was a lot of confusion on when both were founded (which has now been ironed out). With that said, I can remove this (just wanted to provide a little context first).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)