Talk:Sir George Walker, 1st Baronet

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sir George Walker, 1st Baronet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 19:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Initial statement

It so happens that the Napoleonic Wars is one of my favorite eras. I brought the Battle of Orthez, where Walker was heavily involved, to GA class. I will be happy to review this article. Djmaschek (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Review 1

This is an excellent article and worthy of GA class. Even so, I've read it once and see some issues. I will work through each section and list corrections below. Either make the correction or argue your case not to change it. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Introduction, in general. In my opinion, the introduction is a bit too long. I think there is too much detail. The introduction should give a general idea of what he did, and leave the interesting details for the narrative. Specific examples are given below.
• Introduction, paragraph 1. "He joined the army in 1782 (COMMA) but after his first two regiments were quickly disbanded (COMMA) he..."

•  Done

• Introduction, paragraph 1. "Here he saw his first action, fighting tax collectors..." This is a baffling statement. At first, I thought you were trying to be funny. Then I read the details in the narrative. SUGGEST1: Remove the sentence, since it was not really a significant part of his career, and trying to explain it in the introduction may confuse the reader. SUGGEST2: Add "as a deputy QM general" to the previous sentence and remove the rest.

•  Done

• Introduction, paragraph 1. "After being promoted to captain lieutenant (COMMA) Walker..."

•  Done

• Introduction, paragraph 1. "When the French Revolutionary War began in 1793 (COMMA) he..."

•  Done

• Introduction, paragraph 1. It's really too bad that this Simon Fraser does not seem to have an article. Unfortunately there are too many Simon Frasers.

• Annoying, isn't it? I tried to figure out who he was to at least provide a red link but failed in doing so..!

• Introduction, paragraph 2. I would remove this clause: "Being in the reserve at the Battle of Roliça". He didn't fight at Rolica, but the rest of the sentence is VERY important. Rolica is mentioned in the narrative.

•  Done

• Introduction, paragraph 2. "after a period of leave and independent service (COMMA) he..."

•  Done

• Introduction, paragraph 2. "of 1809. In 1810" Putting dates together looks awkward. SUGGEST: Move "in 1810" after "brigadier general".

•  Done

• Introduction, paragraph 3. "He was given the 2nd Brigade of the 5th Division in which he fought at the Siege" SUGGEST: "He was given command of a brigade in the 5th Division with which..." REASONING: Save the details for the narrative.

•  Done

• Introduction, paragraph 3. "in which Walker was badly injured after rallying his men from a rout caused by rumours about a mine." SUGGEST "in which Walker was badly wounded." REASONING: "injured" sounds like he fell off his horse when he was actually shot and bayonetted! Remove the clause "after rallying his men..." It is detail that is covered in the narrative.

•  Done

• Introduction, paragraph 3. "re-joined the peninsular in 1812" > "re-joined the peninsular army in 1812". REASONING: "peninsular" is an adjective.

•  Done

• Introduction, paragraph 3. "commander of the 1st Brigade of the 2nd Division." SUGGEST: "commander of a brigade of the 2nd Division."

•  Done

• Introduction, paragraph 3. "he was again injured" SUGGEST: "wounded".

•  Done

• Early life. "Having been educated at Rugby School from 1773, Walker's father, fighting in the American Revolutionary War, had him commissioned into the 95th Regiment of Foot as an ensign on 4 March 1782." The sentence makes it look like his father was educated at Rugby School. SUGGEST: "Walker was educated at Rugby School from 1773. His father, while fighting in the American Revolutionary War, had Walker commissioned into the 95th Regiment of Foot as an ensign on 4 March 1782."

•  Done

• I need to quit now and pick up the review later. I've read the later sections and believe there will be fewer corrections there.

Review 2

I'm ready to continue the review. I double-checked all your edits so far and they are good. Here are more items for possible edit. Djmaschek (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Early career, paragraph 1. "It was stationed in southern India, to which he sailed on 10 March." He joined the 36th on 15 March 1784 and sailed to India on 10 March. Please add year. I assume 1785, but it is not clear.

•  Done - have rejigged wording to make passage clearer

• Early career, paragraph 1. "previously handed control of taxation" > "previously handled control of taxation". (handled, not handed)

•  Not done - I believe handed to be correct here. The Nawab handed control of taxation to the EIC.

• You are correct.

• Early career, paragraph 2. Jamaica needs a link.

•  Done

• Early career, paragraph 2. "rest of the regiment were stationed" > "rest of the regiment was stationed" (troops were / regiment was)

•  Done

• Early career, paragraph 2. "army retreated through Germany at the end of the year" NOTE: The army retreated through the Dutch Republic in late 1794 and early 1795. The army crossed the Ems into Germany in February 1795 and embarked for England in April 1795 (Phipps, vol. 1, p. 331). Perhaps you could rephrase this.

•  Done - reworded, hopefully makes more sense now

• Regimental command, paragraph 1. "in early 1795 he was appointed" > "in early 1795 Walker was appointed" COMMENT: It's a good idea to start the first sentence in a paragraph with "Walker", not "he".

•  Done

• Regimental command, paragraph 1. "To assist in defending the country (COMMA) Roll's"

•  Done

• Regimental command, paragraph 1. "gone ahead of them in March" > "gone ahead of it in March" ("it" refers to Roll's Regiment)

•  Done

• Regimental command, paragraph 1. Use Prince of Waldeck's full name from the linked article. It was OK to use the abbreviated version in the introduction.

•  Done

• Regimental command, paragraph 2. "Soon after the invasion was called off" SUGGEST: "Soon after the invasion ended" REASONING: "called off" sounds like it was canceled whereas the invasion resulted in several battles.

•  Done

• Regimental command, paragraph 2. "The transports the brigade travelled on were upset by constant bad weather as they travelled south" SUGGEST: "The brigade's naval transports were upset by constant bad weather as they travelled south" (travelled used twice)

•  Done

• Regimental command, paragraph 3. "the 50th were in the reserve" > "the 50th was in the reserve" (troops were / regiment was)

•  Done

• Regimental command, paragraph 3. "and charged it back down the hill it was attacking up.The" SUGGEST: "and drove it back down the hill it was attacking." (ALSO: Space before The)

•  Done

• Regimental command, paragraph 3. "forced to retreat four miles" COMMENT: I thought there was no pursuit after Vimeiro. Use convert tag: 4 mils (0.0 km) Use long dash: 3-4,000 > 3–4,000

• Per Dodd p.330: "At the battle of Vimiera he distinguished himself at the head of his regiment, having thrown a French column of three or four thousand men into utter confusion, from which they never recovered, and followed them for nearly four miles."

• OK. You are following your source.

• Regimental command, paragraph 3. "in the peninsular." > "in the peninsular army." OR "in the peninsula."

•  Done

• Regimental command, paragraph 3. "In January 1809 (COMMA) Walker" RULE: In a short sentence the comma is not needed, but this sentence has a second clause.

•  Done

• Regimental command, paragraph 4. "Walker was again made a brigadier-general in August 1810" COMMENT: Again? I don't see where he was previously promoted to BG.

• Removed the 'again'. Bad wording from me based on the previous sentence, where he commanded a brigade but not as a brigadier general.

• Time for another break.

Review 3

Everything good so far. Here are my concluding comments, starting with General section. Djmaschek (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• General, paragraph 1. "Still working as a liaison, the Spanish took Santander on 14 August but by this time". COMMENT: I know what you are trying to say here, but "Still working as a liaison" is followed by "Spanish" which is awkward. SUGGEST: "The Spanish took Santander on 14 August while he was still working as a liaison. By this time..." (and start new sentence)

•  Done

• General, paragraph 1. COMMENT: Oman wrote that Walker's attack was a complete success and would have caused the fortress to surrender even if the other assaults all failed. Oman even mentioned the mine incident and said the British were driven back but rallied on a battalion (2/38th) in reserve before sweeping back the French. (Oman, Vol. 5, pp=253-254)

• My fault! Concentrated too heavily on Walker himself and forgot that people might be interested to know what actually happened in the siege..! Have added a small bit noting that it was eventually successful.

• General, paragraph 1. Was Walker captured? I realize that Badajoz soon surrendered, so if he was captured it would not have been for very long. What a decent fellow to look up the prisoner who saved his life.

• Not something that's ever mentioned, actually. I expect if he'd been captured it would have been recorded, so in this instance it's more likely that he was found soon after and it was the Frenchman who was taken prisoner. All guesswork, of course.

• General, paragraph 2. [Dalhousie] "left the peninsular" > "left the peninsular army" OR "left the peninsula".

•  Done

• General, paragraph 3. [wife died] "left the peninsular" > (same as above)

•  Done

• General, paragraph 4. "In 1827 Walker attempted to be named" Can you rephrase? The wording makes it sound like he was being underhanded. Did Walker apply to be named but passed over? Or was he nominated but passed over?

•  Done - he put his name forward but Dalhousie was preferred

• Personality, last paragraph. "As well as this (COMMA) Walker..." (OR: Walker also...)

•  Done

• Personality, last paragraph. "A strict disciplinarian, his long periods on the staff instead of in regimental duties in his early career have been suggested to have been the cause of this. (used "have been" twice) SUGGEST: "He was a strict disciplinarian and his long periods on the staff instead of in regimental duties in his early career may have been the cause of this."

•  Done

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I'm finally done with the last part of the review. Djmaschek (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Djmaschek: Apologies, I got distracted with other projects today and am now off to bed. Will go through this tomorrow. Many thanks for your points so far! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)