- 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 MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list[reply]
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)
1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This article has been developed from nothing in the last three weeks, and recently passed GAN. It covers the short operational life of one of the three horsed cavalry divisions of the Royal Yugoslav Army, which was designated as an army group reserve in the event of an Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. When that invasion materialised, the division was quickly shorn of its fighting regiments to strengthen other divisions of the army group, and barely had time to start deploying its meagre assets into a defensive line before it was scooped up by the Ustashas and Germans. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I reviewed this one recently for GA and I believe that it meets the A-class criteria now. I have only one comment/suggestion:
- currently there are two level two headings "Planned deployment" and "Deployment plan" with no content in between them. I suggest removing one of the headings, or adding content between them to differentiate the sections. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One thoughts, not clear that the extensive 'Background' section is needed at the level of a single, even if large division. This section would be better placed at corps ("Army") or higher. But overall it gets the tick - good research. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I really like what you've done with this one; it's dense, but you make it easy to follow. Recently, I've been doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to Structure and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – only a few minor cmts:
- Tools checks all ok (no dabs, no citation errors, external links ok, no issues with close paraphrase detected by Earwig [1]) – no action req'd
- There are a few duplicate links to be resolved per WP:REPEATLINK:
- Yugoslavia (see "which was located in southeastern Yugoslavia at Niš")
- World War I (see "and the divisional artillery battalion was largely equipped with World War I-vintage pieces")
- fifth column (see "Armed fifth column Ustase groups and German troops disarmed")
- Image is PD and seems to have the appropriate information / tags - no action req'd.
- Caption seems ok - no action req'd.
- Are the dates of the existence of this formation known exactly? The article doesn't seem to be definitive about when it was formed (although the implication seems to be that it existed on paper in 1935 at least, and was obviously mobilised in 1941). If this information is available though it should perhaps included (and the dates also added to the infobox).
- Is anything known of its peacetime activities, for instance did it conduct regular / annual exercises or call-outs etc?
- Prose here is a little repetitive: "By the time the invasion commenced, the 1st Cavalry Division had only commenced mobilisation." (specifically "commenced" used twice in the same sentence)
- You might consider adding the article to some more categories (for instance, if the dates are appropriate – Category:Military units and formations established in 1935 and Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1941)
- Otherwise this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not much is known about any specific mobilisations of this division or exactly when it was raised in this form. Terzic is pretty good but restricts himself to the mid-30s on. Have fixed the overlinking and categorisation, and minor grammar tweak. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:00, 18 January 2016 (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.