From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidate2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good article2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2020 Good article nomineeListed
October 19, 2020 WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
January 14, 2021 Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

3rd Indian Motor Brigade

Lt-Col Joslen book that provides the order of battle for every British division during the war fails to note an Indian motor brigade being temp attached to the division; are we completly sure it is suppose to be here in the article?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Mechili Comment

Can the division really be said to have surrendered? The best data I could find for Sonnenblume was 1,760 prisoners taken at Mechili from the 3rd Indian and other units. Even in its attenuated state after the detachments to Greece, this seems a low number. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Expansion

25 Feb 16 took material from Operation Sonnenblume re: 2nd AD Keith-264 ( talk) 21:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 23:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Picking this one up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments
  • Link Northumberland Hussars
    added EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • 7th Armoured Division (United Kingdom) should just be 7th Armoured Division.
    fixed EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • When did 5 RTR join?
    I have added the unit in parenthesis after mentioning the arrival of 3rd Arm Bde EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Suggest swapping the last two sentences of Arrival in the Middle East
    Switched around EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • "One of the division's brigades remained at Tobruk. The other two were positioned well to the north of Benghazi to hold the high ground of the Jebel Akhdar." I presume we're talking about the 9th Division here.
    Correct, I have added the full division name EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • 1,600 gallons - conversion to litres required here
    Convert template added EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I would mention that O'Connor was also captured.
    Neame was captured with O'Connor, but neither were captured when the 2nd Division's HQ was overrun. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Stanhope (1979) is not used; suggest moving to Further Reading
    After reviewing the edit history, looks like this had only been used for the size of the Cold War division, which has subsequently been sourced elsewhere. So, I have removed it.
  • Citation required for second paragraph of Surrender
    Slight adjustment made, looks like the c/e separated it from its sources. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Nit picks
  • "By the 1930s, the army had established three types of division: the infantry division; the mobile division (later called the armoured division) and the motor division." Replace semicolon with comma
    fixed EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • "It also restricted the mobility of the 2nd Armoured Division which could not move beyond the range of their supply dumps." Comma before "which"
    Added EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • "The only other major formation available to Neame, was the 9th Australian Division." Delete comma
    Removed EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • "Marsa Brega" should be "Mersa Brega"
    fixed EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • "The main body followed the cruiser which moved towards the gun battery previously silenced by the 18h Cavalry." Comma before "which"
    added EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • "with an alleged 25 percent increase" Should be "per cent"
    While I would usually agree, I have just double checked the source and the author has it a single word. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    "percent" is American English (an Oxymoron if ever was one). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Overall

As a general comment, while I'm happy to pass the article as it is, the blow-by-blow account of the fighting in Cyrenaica would probably be better in its own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the review. I have attempted to action all the changes you have suggested. In regards to separating info, I can totally review the article to cut it down before taking it further. The Operation Sonnenblume article does cover the fighting, although strictly I believe this was only the codename for the deployment of the Afrika Korps, and provide the overview; I tried to keep this article specific to the division's blow by blow account as it was it was its only action. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Destruction of the division

Apart from the best bits being in another continent at the time, "destruction" of the remainder has been challenged [1]. Apparently the division was to be reconstituted but events led to the 3rd Armoured Brigade being assigned elsewhere and in the end its units were sent to other divisions. Perhaps this could better be conveyed in the lead? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Scanning through the first page of the debate, I understand were both sides are coming from. However, I dont see anything that would qualify as a RS, by wiki standards, to challenge that the division was - for all intents and purposes - destroyed by the fighting. For example, Joslen notes that the troops that were dispatched to Greece were no longer part of the division, and also comments that the 3rd Arm Bde ceased being a combat formation due to the losses suffered during the retreat. I think highlighting that the 3rd Arm Bde was thrown back together in Tobruk and merged into a tank brigade is outside the realm of this article, and should be the focus of its own article. The meat and potatoes of this article does highlight that the brigade lost most of its tanks due to breakdowns, and that personnel withdrew into Tobruk. Do you have a suggestion for a rewording of the lede in this regard (or a particular page/post of the debate to draw attention to?)? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 18:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I think that the counter-view is a minority one so shouldn't be pushed too far, perhaps noting that it exists is enough, provided that there's a RS. If the elements sent to Greece ceased to be part of the 2nd Armoured, were they replaced? If not, it was a division in name only, more like a German or late war British battlegroup, this [s]hould be easy to establish from Playfair. As for losses, the equipment was worthless anyway, it's the personnel losses that matter. My view is that that part of the division left in Cyrenaica was disbanded rather than "destroyed" and that some fanboi hyperbole about Rommel has obscured what really happened. When I did a quick copy-edit of the lead I struggled to find wording that adequately conveyed what I meant but which wouldn't deviate from the cited material in the body of the article. I'll have to do some delving around. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 19:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Joslen states that the 1st Arm Bde stopped being part of the div when it shipped to Greece. It wasnt replaced either, which left the div with just the 3rd Arm Bde. Playfair refers to it as a brigade in name only. Scanning through Vol II Chapter II, he doesnt state it was destroyed, doesnt mention it being disbanded either. He just points out that it was too weak to stop what happened. Looking through the latter parts of Vol II, and the early parts of Vol III, I dont see any figures provided for how many people escaped. Playfair does mention it was quite a large portion of the Cyrencia garrison though (about 50,000 men were evac'ed from Tobruk when the 70th were shipped in).
Joslen does point out that the div Hq staff were rolled, temporarily, into the 7th Arm Div Hq. Playfair notes that these guys were largely then used to staff the newly formed 13th Corps Hq. It would also be quite easy, it would seem, to source that the various regiments did continue to fight in the NA campaign. A line tagged on the end of the surrender section after pointing out the division was officially disbanded, just to point out what happened to the various units? I dont think that takes away from the fact that the division did cease to exist as a result of enemy action, although largely due to its own logistical failures. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2nd_Armoured_Division_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=1197001944"