Talk:Polish Legions (Napoleonic era)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 08:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Will read through properly and start the review tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think that's done now. Some copyediting issues and some other small bits, but if they're fixed, should be good at GA. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Got back from travelling last night - will read through tomorrow! Cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made one minor tweak, and I think its good to go. Nice work. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• "were several Polish military units that served with the French Army" - is it possible to put a number as to how many units there were?
  • A bit tricky, due to issues covered at "Timeframe and numbers". If historians are not fully in agreement as to the timeframe, there cannot be a clear argument about the numbers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• " and were considered a Polish army in exile" - did just the French consider them this, or did other combatants too?
  • I have reword this a little. I don't think it is a controversial term, but it not referenced, and weasiling it is not helping.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Within historiography there is a degree of uncertainty about the period in which the Legions existed." - I'm not sure you really mean historiography here; did you mean "Amongst historians there is..."?
  • Yes. I will change it to your version. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Magocsi et al." - you'll need to expand the et al. I'd also expect to see the historians' full names (e.g. John Smith, rather than Smith) the first time they appeared in this format.
  • It is an academic way of citing. I think MoS allows us to use it, as long as we do so consistently? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's the bit in the main text that's the issue, rather than the citation. They're appearing as people in the text, and they'd therefore normally be introduced by full name. I won't die in a ditch over it though! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Demographically, most of the soldiers came from the ranks of the peasantry" - you could delete "demographically" without changing the meaning of the sentence if you wished.
  • Sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Paris was the seat of two Polish organizations pretending to be a sort of government-in-exile" - are you happy about the verb "pretend" here? (which could be felt to be POV, if not backed by the literature)
  • Good catch, no, reworded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Jan Henryk Dąbrowski, a former high-ranking officer in the army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, began his work in 1796 – a year after the total destruction of the Commonwealth – when he went to Paris, and later, Milan, where his idea received support from Napoleon Bonaparte, who saw the Poles as a promising source of new recruits, and who superficially appeared receptive to the idea of liberating Poland." This is rather a long sentence and probably needs breaking in two somewhere.
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Capitalisation of legions - sometimes you have "legions", other times "Legions" - it needs to be consistent
  • Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• " were seen as among the most pro-French foreign forces in the Cisapline" - seen by who? (if its not critical who, then you could just say "were among the most...")
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• " From a Roman representative, Dąbrowski obtained a number of trophies that the Polish king" - should probably be "Dąbrowski obtained a number of trophies from a Roman representative, that the Polish king..."
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• " the Ottoman standard subsequently" - as you haven't mentioned the standard before, I'd suggest "amongst these was an Ottoman standard which..."
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• "part of the Legions' symbols" - I'm not sure about the use of the word "symbol" here, as its usually used to refer to an emblem rather than a standard.
  • I think that's a correct meaning, as in symbols of Poland, but you are welcome to suggest an alternative word? I am blanking on a synonym... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Soon afterward, supplies from the captured Gaeta fortress allowed the creation of a Legion cavalry unit" - do we know what kind of supplies these were?
  • I don't think we do. I would guess guns and such, but... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Within about a year since their formation" > "Within about a year of its formation"
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• "the Legion reached about 10,000" > "the Legion had become about 10,000 strong."
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• "the anti-French coalition advanced upon Italy" - I'd lost track of who the anti-French coalition was by this point, as I don't think it had been made clear in the previous sections.
  • I don't even claim to know, interested readers can see the linked just before War of the Second Coalition for a list of participants. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• War of the Second Coalition: Italian front. I'd combine para's 2 and 3, which would help the text flow better.
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• " became part of the soon besieged garrison at Mantua" - the "soon besieged" doesn't work well as a phrase for me. Suggest "became part of the garrison at Mantua, and were soon placed under siege by..."
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Finally, at the end of the Siege of Mantua (April–July), the French commander François-Philippe de Foissac-Latour decided to release Polish soldiers – then under Wielhorski – into Austrian custody as the Austrians claimed them to be deserters; this marked the end of the Second Legion, as only a small number of Poles were able to evade capture (the French were allowed to withdraw most of their forces under the condition that they would remain neutral)." - another very long sentence that could do with being broken up into two.
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "With the disappearance of the Cisalpine Republic, the Legions would be reorganized in France" > "the Legions were reorganized in France". You might want to consider "With the collapse of the Cisalpine Republic" or "With the end of the Cisalpine Republic", as disappearance seems a bit odd here.
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "were reorganized near Marseilles as the Italian Legion (La Legion Italique) into a 9,000-strong unit " Did you mean "were reorganized near Marseilles into the Italian Leigion (La Legion Italique), a 9,000 strong unit," ?
  • Yes. Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "In 1800[3][19] or 1799[6] (sources vary)" I'd suggest "In either 1799 or 1800," - you probably don't need the sources vary bit, and I'd start with the earlier of the two dates.
  • I prefer to caution the reader that there is no consensus in available literature; I think chosing just one date would border on OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Legion du Rhine" - why is this not in italics when the other foreign names are?
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "According to Davies, it would suffer significant casualties" - unclear by this point in the paragraph what the "it" is; if its the Legion, I'd name it rather than using a pronoun.
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "The size of Legions decreased after the Treaty of Luneville (9 February 1801), which made no mention of Poland." is there a link between these two events? Also "the Legions".
  • Done - clarified the importance.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "The Legion was transferred to police duties in the Kingdom of Etruria" - which Legion?
  • Done (plurar form used).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "1st" - previously the article has used "First". Same with the "2nd"/Second.
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Demi-Brigade Étrangère" - inconsistent italics again.
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "most of the disgruntled legions" - is it true to call them legions by this point, as they've been reorganised into brigades? Or would it be more accurate to say "Legionaries"?
  • My thoughts exactly. Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "The Haitian campaign proved disastrous for the Legion" - which legion?
  • Done (legionnaires).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "reduced the 5,280-strong Legion" - the plural legions have become a singular "legion" again here.
  • Done (Polish contingent). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "and tropical diseases (like yellow fever)" - I'd suggest "tropical diseases, including yellow fever,"
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• " in the wilds of the Caribbean" - I wasn't sure about this phrase. Was Haiti really "wild", as opposed to just unhealthy?
  • Done (removed wilds).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "By 1805, during the War of the Third Coalition, the Polish troops in Italy had been renamed the 1st Polish Legion (1e Legion Polonaise) and attached to the Kingdom of Italy.[26] In 1806, all that was left of the old Dąbrowski and Kniaziewicz's Legions was one demi-brigade, consisting of one infantry regiment and one cavalry regiment, now in the service of the Kingdom of Naples." - Are these two sentences talking about the same troops? (I was a little confused)
  • This is my understanding, yes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Although some chose to remain with the French forces, and fought in Italy under the Kingdom of Naples" - this seems to be repeating the previous section a bit.
  • A summary, I think it is not unhelpful there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• " from the newly allied Polish territories" - is this the Polish state referred to previously? If so, isn't it a singular territory?
  • Went with "newly liberated Polish lands". I hope that's better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "When Napoleon was forced into exile on Elba, the only unit he was allowed to keep as guards were the Polish Lancers.[28] " - isn't this sentence out of sequence?
  • Good catch, should be fixed now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Napoleon used the Poles as a source of recruits with little desire" - should presumably be "Napoleon used the Poles as a source of recruits and had little desire"
  • Good catch, fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Appears mostly fine at this stage.
• The "Notable members" section at the moment is just a single wiki link. Unless the plan was to expand this, I'd move this link down to become a "See also" and remove the section heading.
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• I might advise combining paras 2 and 3 of the lead into one paragraph. 16:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Some references give location and publisher, some just publisher - this should ideally be consistent.
  • Done. I find location useless, and it is not auto-generated by http://reftag.appspot.com/ . I'd hope we can ignore this at GA level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• fn 6 is listed as "Napoleonic Journal. No. 1 : January 1996." The web page shows the title as just "Napoleon, No.1 : January 1996"
  • I think you are right. Changed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• fn 33 "The Duchy of Warsaw, 1807–1813. World History at KMLA" lacks an access date. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;

• "(leading to the expression, "the Polish Legions in Italy")" doesn't seem to be cited
  • I'd like to think it is self-evident. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• fn 15 - " The Legions, hopeful for a renewal of the war, were seen as among the most pro-French foreign forces in the Cisapline" - I'm having trouble seeing the "most pro-French forces" on p. 224.
  • Reworded to "seen as". My reading of "The legions aroused some fears; they were suspected of being an instrument of French rule over the Republic.". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• fn 33 - is this website a reliable source? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • So-so, for a quote... I found Mark Baker; Kit F. Chung (4 April 2011). Frommer's Poland. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 19–. ISBN 978-0-470-96424-8. Retrieved 25 September 2012. but it is not that much better. There is more in Polish language sources, for example a quote ("To dobrze, 800 Polaków, to znaczy tyle, co 8000 innych żołnierzy") in Stanisław Szczepanowski; Stanisław Jedynak (1988). Idea polska wobec prądów kosmopolitycznych. Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza. p. 44. Retrieved 25 September 2012.. Also confirmed in this PD source Antoni Ostrowski (1840). Żywot Tomasza Ostrowskiego, ministra Rzeczypospolitej, póżniej prezesa senatu Księstwa warszawskiego i Królewstwa polskiego: oraz Rys wypadków krajowych od 1763 r. do 1817, przez autora Pomysłów o potrzebie reformy towarzyskiej. W Księgarni Polskiej. p. 381. Retrieved 25 September 2012. , so I think the quote can stay. I can add the book refs instead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• None spotted so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• It comes out gradually, but I really wasn't 100% clear as to what sort of units the Legions comprised/made up. For example, was a Legion the basic unit, or was it broken up into battalions etc.? How big was a legion? There must have been a 1st Legion, but did they all have numbers, etc.? Were they mainly infantry? If so, were there riflemen, or where they all muskets? etc. Basic stuff, but it isn't very clear at the moment.
  • Neither are the sources. The names of the formations changed, and some historias talk about the legions at the time when there were no formaitons with such an official name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Seems fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Appears neutral so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• Jan Henryk Dabrowski 2.jpg claims life of the author plus 70 years rationale for PD, but doesn't give a date of death for him. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Added infobox with author's dod. Needs a source, asked the uploader. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• "Polish Legions soldier in Italy" - unclear if this meant that the reconstruction was in Italy, or that the reconstruction was of a soldier in Italy. Also worth labelling it as a reconstruction.
  • Description is not informative, and I am no expert to improve it :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• The positioning of the images seems to be predominantly up at the top of the article. Could any "general" images, e.g. 'Vistula Legion' Polish infantry, be moved into an imageless section down below? This would avoid the right-hand "column of images" you get on a screen like mine. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I am not sure if I see a problem. Perhaps you could rearrange the images to your liking? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

As I was not notified on talk, I've just noticed this review. I'll try to respond to all issues within 1-3 days. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)