- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2019 [1].
- Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Making a second attempt to get this article promoted to FA standard, following a failed attempt last year. It is currently an A-Class article, having previously passed its GA review and being worked on by the Guild of Copyeditors. The 18th Infantry Division was a British army formation that fought in the Battle of Singapore. Prior to that infamous battle, it had been raised and formed in 1939 and spent the next few years being deployed around various parts of the UK. Due to mounting political needs for additional British fighting troops in North Africa, the division was deployed in a roundabout way to the Middle East. However, with the Japanese entry into the war, it was diverted to Malaya and Singapore. One brigade fought in Malaya, and the entire division (although mishandled and committed piecemeal) fought in the disastrous defense of Singapore and joined in the general surrender. Due to the conditions of Japanese camps, over one third of the division's men never returned nor was the division reformed after the surrender.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Why are File:Japanese_troops_final_stages_to_conquest_Singapore,_Johore_Bahru_(AWM_127900).JPG and File:British_troops_surrender_in_Singapore.png believed to be AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the copyright section on the memorial website "Unless otherwise specified, anything published, hosted, appearing or accessible on this website (including without limitation information, data, text, images, databases, code, software, logos, publications, sound recordings, or videos) is material in which intellectual property is owned by or licensed to the Memorial." The actual photo article does not provide any additional information in regards to copyright, other than it is now in the public domain due to the copyright expired. If there is a more appropriate permission is required, please advise.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would read the situation as there is an "otherwise specified" in this case, which is that the images are PD. My question is around why they're PD, and thus whether the current tagging is correct. The context suggests that the photographer is likely non-Australian - perhaps British? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would be the issue, we do not have any further information about the photo or who took it. Personally, I believe it was probably an Japanese photographer. As far as I can tell, the photo does not appear on the IWM nor have I been able to find any information on who took it or who had prior copyright status.
- All we know, so it would seem, is that the AWM do not otherwise specify any information on the photo, implying - per their own blurb - that they either own or have previously licensed the photo, which they have now deemed to be in the public domain. The Aus Crown Copyright tag states that it would PD due to being created prior to 1969, we know this was created in Jan 1942. With that said, I do not know what would be a more correct PD tag for the photo.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest reaching out to AWM to see if they might have more context. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review[edit]
- I did the sources review for the earlier FAC and gave a clean bill of health. The same is true now; the sources are in my view of the appropriate quality and reliability and are presented immaculately.
- Spotchecks: I carried out a small sample of spotchecks from the very limited material available online. Ref 20: Can't find anything relevant in the cited London Gazette page. Other instances all check out. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, thanks for the spot checks and comment. In regards to ref 20, at the very bottom on the right hand side it discusses Dalby: "The undermentioned appts. are made: — Maj.-Gen. T. G. Dalby, C.B., D.S.O., ret. pay, to be Comdr. (temp.). 28th Aug. 1939" Confirming that he was retired and appointment commander. The Joslen reference specifically references him as commander, the Gazette was just to bring up the point of him being brought out of retirement (apparently a common thing for the 2nd Line Div commanders).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR last year, and have looked over the changes since then. It is in great shape, I have the following comments:
- in the lead, suggest "Following the Japanese beachhead being established" → "Following the establishment of the Japanese beachhead"
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- in the lead, when you say it wasn't reformed, this almost begs the question of how it would be reformed given it had been captured. Perhaps "regenerated in the United Kingdom"?
- I have went with reconstituted, but if you feel that regenerated works better I will switch it out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Even better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- in the lead, suggest internment instead of confinement
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- annexe is the noun form, not the verb
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- first line → first-line 54th (East Anglian) Infantry Division, as it is a compound adjective in this case
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- suggest "The Imperial War Museums
commentobserve"
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- suggest "and eight 4.5-inch howitzers of similar vintage"
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- for "anti-tank guns" link Anti-tank warfare
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- is there a possible link for Second BEF?
- No such article. I could thrown together a note to provide some additional context and maybe an OOB?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A Note would be good, but I don't think a OOB is necessary. I'd never heard of a Second BEF before, and it sort of begs the question given there is no article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I may have gotten carried away a little, but there is now a note.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- link Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- suggest "administration forces" → "logistical troops"
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- suggest " I/5th Battalion of the Japanese Imperial Guards Division" as it reads a bit funny at present
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- link line of communication
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- the second (including the 2CR and 5RNR) is probably unnecessary
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- suggest "The 18th D
division was ordered to remain"
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- my comment about reforming applies here too
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- the Notes column of the GOC table would benefit from being centred, and the italics dropped
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peacemaker67: Thank you for the review and comments. I believe I have addressed most of the points you have raised, and I have left a few comments above in reply to a couple of points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by Gog the Mild[edit]
- "In March 1939 following the re-emergence of Germany" This reads very oddly. Something a little more encyclopedic may work better. It may be easiest to delete "the re-emergence of Germany, and".
- "redeployment to the North West" is not a "duty".
- "the planned upcoming offensive code-named Operation Crusader". Optional: to my eye either "planned" or "upcoming" is redundant.
- "After the division arrived in Nova Scotia, they switched to". "they" -> 'it'.
- "(via simultaneous attacks on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor and the invasion of the British colony of Malaya)" I would recommend deleting this; it strongly suggests that these were the only aggressive actions by which Japan entered the war.
- "into Johore" -> 'to Johore'?
- "the short Battle of Singapore" Is eight days "short"? This is not, so far as I can see, repeated in the main article. Could you either repeat it in the main body and cite it or delete "short".
- "The rest of the division arrived shortly after" It states above that most of the division had gone to India and that only 53 Brigade was sent to Singapore. How and/or why did the rest of the division come to join it, over 2,000 miles from India?
- "Following the establishment of the Japanese beachhead". "the" -> 'a'.
- "regrouped for the final stand" "the" -> 'a'.
- "The division was not reconstituted in the United Kingdom". Would this be a more accurate statement if "in the United Kingdom" were deleted?
- Importantly, to my eye the lead is too long and padded with trivia. Eg, the nationality of the ships taking them to the Middle East/Singapore. It would benefit, IMO, from losing 30-40% of the lead.
- Infobox. Who is Mike Chappell?
- Note a: "for information on how division sizes changed over the war" "over" -> 'during'.
More to follow. Frankly, on the basis of the lead, this does not have the feel of a FA-ready article. I am surprised to see that it is A class. Perhaps it gets better as it continues.
Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Having reread the whole article I am of the opinion that it is a long way from 1a: "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". And that the flaws are too numerous for it to be reasonably expected that FAC reviewers flag them up individually. The quality varies across the sections, but overall runs at around one issue per sentence. I would suggest that this goes to GOCE with a request that it be given the full FA treatment. I am quite prepared to be told by a coordinator that I am being over-zealous in my interpretation of 1a. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the feedback. Unfortunately, this week, I will not have the time to address tour comments regarding the led.
- As for the comment regarding the GOCE, well frankly I am confused. You have argued that their pass of this article essentially failed. There are different standards of requests? A 2nd pass will result in promotion?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi EnigmaMcmxc. My GOCE comment was based on their copy edit being nearly 18 months ago, but reviewing the history I can see that it hasn't changed a lot since then. I have faith in GOCE, I do a fair bit of work there myself. TFT is an excellent copy editor. But any copy edit is just one editor doing what they feel is necessary at that particular point in time. (I follow the articles I copy edit for GOCE through any subsequent reviews and frequently smack my forehead as reviewers pick up things that I have missed.)
- To avoid confusion, I will point out that I skimmed the article. Then reviewed the lead in detail and commented above. Then read the rest of the article in detail and decided that it did not meet 1a and needed so much work in that respect that I couldn't reasonably be expected to flag it all up as a reviewer. Having gone through it again in even more detail (just) I am still of this opinion. I can see now how it can be considered up to the ACR "The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear" even if I disagree. I do not feel it is up to FAC 1a. (Although, obviously, if there is a consensus that it is that settles the matter.) Ie, addressing all of the issues I picked up in the lead will not move my oppose to support. To be clearer, in all other respects the article is at, or near enough to at, the FA criteria; it is only 1a which I am having an issue with. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment - Given the substantial commentary on work needed at this time, I think it's best to archive this to allow the nominator time to hammer out the issues outside of the FAC process. It may be renominated after the customary two-week waiting period and once issues are addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.