Only really an issue if you wish to take the article further: "9th (Highland) Infantry Division" and "9th (Highland) Division" are both used; consistency would be good. (IMO "9th (Highland)" is an acceptable short form.)
I have moved to make this a bit more consistent, leaving the full term in use in a few places and just "9th (Highland)" elsewhere. This work?
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Looks good to me.
Cites 38 and 48 use "and"; other cites use a comma. Is there a reason you have used "and"?
Cite 33: is there a reason why page numbers are not given?
I have only been able to access an e-book version, which does not include page numbers. Prior experience is to use the "loc=" field in the ref in order to provide a cite.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I guess that that will do for GA.
Infobox: "Size"; information in the infobox should be repeated in the main body.
"Size" (again): IMO the source given does not support the division being "at most 10,000" strong at any point during its existence. The source gives this for a specific point in time. Given that this was at the height of the Battle of France and that the 9th was "used as a source of reinforcements for other units" it is possible that it was stronger at some earlier point.
In regards to these two points, I have made some tweaks and included the info in the article as well.
I will promote it now, but leave it on my watch list and go through it again over the next few days. I will post any thoughts re improvements for ACR or FAC on the talk page. You are doing a fine job of running through these British divisions.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
09:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply