Talk:Christopher Chowne/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 09:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review the article.

Comments

I've enjoyed reading through this article, and here's a lot of good work done here. Looking at your other reviews (mostly done by very experienced editors), I have modified some of my own thoughts. This is, after all, a GAN.

Lead section / infobox

~~I would link peninsula (renamed 'Iberian Peninsular')~~

Done

~~I would consider removing General from the first line. He reached this rank, but only after his retirement, and shortly before his death.~~

I think it's appropriate. Just as a man who receives a hereditary title shortly before his death (as many did) is still known by it, the rank was his to use.

Understood. AM

As per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES – on significant alternative names are in bold, so I would unbold Christopher Tilson-Chowne

Done

According to MOS:FIRSTBIO – introduce the subject’s notability at the start—that he was a British Army officer is imo insufficient, although I'm aware your other GAs have the same style, so perhaps this can be considered as optional

Expanded slightly

1 Early life

of Watlington Park – I would include here the county and country (Oxfordshire, England). I would include that Watlington was a house set in 500 acres of parkland, or at least some idea that he lived in a grand house.

Have made an attempt, although I've avoided the acreage figures because I'm unsure whether they were the same in Tilson's time.

Commas after John in John who and George in George who

Done

~~Why not call the army 'the British Army’ , and use ‘the Royal Navy’ instead of the navy?~~

Done

Tilson himself joined the British Army on 13 February 1788 as a second lieutenant in the 23rd Regiment of Foot. I would have put this in the next section.

Done

~~See this source (p576) for more details of the family to include for the sake of completeness (including the name of Tilson's mother). The source's index shows there might be more information to mine.~~

Thank you for finding this! I've added more information on the family, as well as his inheritance and marriage. Found a full copy of the book, but the other pages do not provide any more information.

Stationed in the West Indies in 1796, the regiment took part in the peaceful capture of the Dutch colonies of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice, which had agreed to surrender to the British. – simplify to something like 'He was with the regiment in the West Indies during 1796, when the Dutch colonies of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice agreed to surrender to the British.’?

Done

Under the command of Major-General John Whyte and with two other regiments, the 99th arrived off the coast on 20 April and successfully occupied the former two settlements on the following day, moving to Berbice on 28 April. - this seems unnecessarily detailed, as the actions of the army, and not Tilson himself, are described.

I think it's useful to provide some accurate dates to let the reader visualise the length and size of the campaign Tilson took park in, but have simplified the sentence. Does that work?

Yes, it now looks OK

The sentence starting The 99th was disbanded… could imo be with being made into two shorter ones, as the information is unconnected. Even better, start a new paragraph at 24 January 1799, so that Tilson’s career with the 44th is separated from that of the 99th.

Done

at the Battle of Abukir – amend at (during/prior to?)

Done

saw action is idiomatic – amend to ‘fought’ (MOS:IDIOM)

Done

2.1 Early career

Link Battle of Abukir (in the caption); Nicopolis

Linked Abukir. I do not believe there is a suitable target for this particular Nicopolis?

the force, 8,000 men – it could be made clear which force is being referred to here.

Done

using their high angles of fire to drop – I would simplify this to ‘dropping’, as high angles is vague and rather non-scientific

Done

~~Move the image to the right? (MOS:IMAGELOCATION, optional)~~

Done

2.2 General

~~He only became a general in 1830, during his retirement, so that section needs to be retitled~~

Done

2.2.1 Porto campaign

~~Link column (Column (formation))~~

Done

From April he commanded – the chronology seems to have slipped here

I don't think so? Promoted to major-general April 1808, appointed to army staff March 1809, given command of brigade April 1809

You're right, not sure what I read. AM

the British reached in on 12 May – ‘reached it’? Also, I would make this the start of a new sentence to help improve the prose.

Done

In the evening – it’s not obvious which evening is being referred to here

Clarified

~~It's not explained why begging for food keeps men marching~~

Done

The 1st Battalion of the 88th Regiment of Foot, one of Tilson's regiments, had 550 of its 700 men fall behind on the march, but the majority of the men were later able to re-join the brigade.- seems excessively detailed. How relevant is this detail to a biography about Tilson? I would delete it as being excessive detail.

Have generalised the statement, pertaining as it does to the makeup of the unit commanded by him

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2.2.2 Talavera

~~Link Battle of Talavera in the caption; bayonet charge (Bayonet#Bayonet_charge)~~

Done

Thanks @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I've tweaked the painting captions in the article to provide details of the artists/year/location, and enlarged the first image a little. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

around the same time is vague

Removed as unnecessary

~~As his incompetence is notable, is there more information about how his poor reputation arose?~~

Annoyingly there doesn't seem to be. The best I've found is the quote used later on, which pertains specifically to his final recall and thus I'm not comfortable using it to explain away any earlier incompetency. Sources just state that he was found to be incompetent, or was known to be incompetent, etc.

~~Consider amending the subsection title to 'Battle of Talavera'~~

Done

for Talavera – amend to 'for his actions during the battle'?

The "for Talavera" relates to which clasp he received

Understood. AM

~~The sentence beginning Tilson was one of only two major-generals... makes little sense at present, as the two clauses are presumably not connected~~

Have attempted to clarify, not sure how successful I've been though

Yes, it's an improvement. AM

2.2.3 Second Division and Almaraz

~~Link Battle of Almaraz in the caption; leave (Leave (military)); feint; staff officer (Staff (military))~~

Done

made his return – 'returned'?

Done

where he was employed as – 'as'?

where he was employed is redundant. I've amended the text, please revert if the sense has been incorrectly changed. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're asking here

who was still serving in the peninsula seems redundant, as it is clearly true

Done

2.2.4 Recall and retirement

~~Link theatre (Theater (warfare))~~

Done

of the same year - I think we could do with the actual year here

Done

had been known around – 'had surrounded' sounds better imo

Done

3 Family

~~Jackson is a poor source and should not be used here (it is a primary source and add nothing more than Every Saturday does)~~

Done Removed

Every Saturday kindly supplies Miss Asklom's first name—Esther (see here). Although a minor character in Tilson's story, she is interesting in own right (and in such a male-dominated article, information about her could perhaps do with being included as a note), see here for more information about her (optional).

Have added more information from Every Saturday into a note, thank you for bringing it to my attention. Have not gone further than that in the hope that I might instead find enough to write her own article.

4.1 Notes

I would unlink Countess De Bruhl

Done

4.2 Citations / 5 References

Everything below is not GA

My general point to mention here is that this very interesting and well written article relies heavily on older sources, something that I am aware may be difficult to avoid because there is little out there about Chowne in modern works, but which I would personally try to avoid. Where possible, I would not use older sources where modern ones exist. Where the article has multiple citations for short sections of text, I would encourage you to remove the older citations where you can.

I've looked in vain for Wikipedia guidelines to help here, and best I could find was WP:HISTRW (part of an essay). Look at how far down the list "Earlier scholarly books" comes! I'll leave it to you to do what trimming you can, and not judge the article on the sources used, but your use of older ones will be challenged if you intend the article to be promoted past GA.

Finally, I find external links for references where they exist very useful—please feel free to include the following in this section (not GA):

Done

Also,

Consider using this website to standardize any ISBN numbers. (not GA)

Done

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 10 February to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: I believe I have responded to all of your comments. Thank you very much for taking your time with such a thorough review. Re the old sources, I agree entirely with what you say but Chowne just isn't discussed in much, if any, detail in the more modern histories of the Napoleonic Wars. As time goes by in history it seems like the smaller parts and players are glossed over and forgotten, as Oman's seven volumes on the Peninsular War turn into Charles Esdaile's (very good) single book, for example. I don't intend to take this article any further than this; even if I felt that the sources were appropriate for such advancement, my real interests lie in naval history! This was a side project that came from being disgruntled at Chowne's red link in the list of commanders of the British 2nd Division..! Thanks again for all your great work so far, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing

It's now a sound article, and I'm passing it at GA. Thanks for your work, and congratulations. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]