Talk:Louis Nolan

"Major Vickers"

What links the fictional "Major Vickers" with Capt Nolan, please? Refs would be appreciated, or is this original research? The despatch of Vickers's love rival by forging orders is already dealt with in the 1936 film—is it needed here as well? --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Louis Nolan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds, I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough of the article, noting any initial issues that I can't easily fix myself, and then go through the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

This is terrific stuff: well written, sourced, and illustrated. Kudos for putting it together. I only have a few suggestions, mostly small, with one bigger one:

• "Other subjects studied there..." --Does this mean historians know that these subjects were generally studied there, so Nolan probably did? Or is it specifically known that Nolan studied these?
• "the Brigade received mostly immobile" -- should this be "remained"?
• "leading to Raglan" -- appears two sentences in a row; not a big deal, just a minor repetition.
• "60 or 70 were collected by Paget" -- who is Paget?
• The legacy section has some information in it that could be usefully moved up to the Charge section. For example, it's not clear in the Charge section that the cavalry charged the wrong set of guns (though I dimly remember having read this before). The Charge section also has surprisingly little discussion of Nolan's role, portraying him as simply carrying a note from one commander to the other; from the legacy section, this doesn't appear to be the majority view. Can you add a few sentences here about different versions of Nolan's conversation with Lucan, even if it's just to note that the content is disputed? This seems to be the event for which Nolan is known, so it's worth dwelling on. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • These sentences might simply be stolen from the main Charge article to explain: "When Lucan asked what guns were referred to, Nolan is said to have indicated, by a wide sweep of his arm, not the Causeway redoubts but the mass of Russian guns in a redoubt at the end of the valley, around a mile away.[3] His reasons for the misdirection are unclear." -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Tweak now made :). Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't necessary for GA, but what would you think about collapsing the "Popular culture" section into "Legacy"? This seems like it would fit well enough under the "Legacy" header, and that would avoid a two-sentence section.

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Incorrect picture - Duke of Cambridge

The man portrayed in this page is not George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge, who Nolan would have served under, but his father Adolphus, the first Duke. George was conspicuously bewhiskered in the Victorian fashion but Adolphus is rightly clean-shaven in the Georgian fashion set by his father, George III. Adolphus had died in 1850, three years before his son witnessed Nolan's influential demonstration.Cloptonson (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I have inserted an 1855 collodion by George Fenton of the 2nd Duke, copied from his Wikipedia article, picked for showing him as he appeared in Nolan's lifetime, and removed the picture of the senior Duke.Cloptonson (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary

The Austrian Empire would have been referred to as such during the lifetime of Nolan. Austria-Hungary was not its official title until the Compromise of 1868, fourteen years after the death of Nolan. 2001:BB6:5011:1D58:F5D2:2B00:8B43:A2AD (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Legacy: Staff College

I lack immediate access to Woodham-Smith's book, but as I recall one consequence of the Charge of the Light Brigade was the creation of an army staff college, to make sure that such atrocious and wide-spread blundering never happened again. J S Ayer (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)