User:Magicpiano/cites

This essay is intended to describe my approach to writing about historical events. Most of what I write about is colonial history of the 17th and 18th century, with a particular preferences for events of the American Revolution. As an example, I will work with [this version of the Battle of Ushant, an article suffering from a great many defects.

Audience

Consider who is likely to read the article you are working on. English Wikipedia is read by people all over the world, and is often read in some foreign-language countries in preference to their native-language Wikipedia. I try to direct my article to someone who is 12 years old, and is from roughly the opposite side of the planet. This reader may have access to a modern world atlas or its equivalent. This is an important consideration when writing about times when geopolitical boundaries and place names were not what they are now.

Basic article organization

In a nutshell: you are telling a story; it has a beginning, middle, and end. You need to establish who the actors are, where they are, and why they are there. Many basic Wikipedia articles on military actions give short shrift to this information, presenting it (if at all) in an aside, if at all. The Ushant article tells us that two fleets left port and met in battle. It doesn't tell us why either fleet left port, or what the overall state of affairs was in the war. If there is conflict, you must justify why there is conflict. At Ushant, war had recently been declared between France and Britain. Keppel was ordered out to monitor the French fleet at Brest, and Keppel sought an engagement. D'Orvilliers was sent out to avoid battle but keep Keppel's fleet occupied while a second French fleet from Toulon sailed for North America. The Toulon fleet was able to depart the Mediterranean because the British opted to reinforce Keppel and the Channel Fleet rather than reinforcing the Gibraltar fleet.

The article begins with background information. Tell enough about the foregoing situation to give your readers insight into the large-scale situation. Then narrow focus down to the individuals, organizations, and locations that are at going to be involved in the events to be described. If there are political or diplomatic dimensions to the events, introduce those elements. See e.g. the Battles of Saratoga, where the French are interested in the outcome, and there is significant internal politics going on in the American camp. The Ushant article does not tell us anything about who Keppel and d'Orvilliers are, or what their motives are.

Once the background is introduced, tell how the actors got to where the events occur, and why they went there. If you are describing a battle, this section ends when the units that are to do battle move out.

Describe the action. Who did what, where, when. If there is controversy in what happened, state explicitly that there is controversy, and describe the conflicting versions of events (see Battle of Jumonville Glen or Battle of Waxhaws for instances of this). The Ushant article gives a very basic one-paragraph description that says nothing about the signalling problems that were one of the sources of some of the later political issues on both sides of the Channel.

Once the action is over, tell what happened to the actors. Where did they go? Were any of them rewarded (or punished) for their role in the action? If there were political, diplomatic, or historical consequences, tell us about them. Also tell what happened to the location: were there later events there? How is the event and/or site commemorated? The Ushant article gives a passable account of what occurs after the battle in France, but does not tell us who Chartres is, and alludes to something that occurred in the battle but is not described. The British aftermath says little about the relationship between Keppel and Palliser (a friendship soured over political differences and competition for appointments), nor does it detail other changes that occurred in the British Admiralty as a consequence of their dispute.

Actors

Story-telling is a key principle in a well-written article. Important actors (like leaders who give high level orders to the units involved, leaders of those units, and so on) must be introduced, and their role in the overall history established. If a unit is notable (for bravery, aggressive tactics, inappropriate behavior, etc), tell us. If morale is bad and troops are on the verge of mutiny, this may also be important (see Siege of Louisbourg (1745)). The Ushant article should mention that d'Orvilliers was an old and experienced officer, and that Keppel had reasons to seek a battle. Palliser and Chartres do not necessarily need to be introduced in the background, but their roles in the battle should be described in more detail.

Locations

It is not unusual for geography to play a role in events. Maps (see Media below) can show topographic and riverine features that bear on the movements taking place. Document all of the relevant geography, including the locations of key fortifications and their features.

Media

Events that involve movements almost always require maps; they convey information much more efficiently than words do. For older actions, maps that are out of copyright may be found in archives of the participants, or scanned from books on the subject. Sometimes multiple maps are needed, to show strategic and tactical movements, or to show different stages of the action. For the Ushant article, a modern map highlighting Spithead, Brest, and Ushant would probably suffice.

I always try to include portraits of the commanders or other key figures, if they are available. Images should be located in the article where they best illustrate the text. Tactical movement maps should be located near text describing tactical movements. Portraits are available for most of the actors in the Ushant battle; the number of them to include would depend on the space available relative to the text size.

All of the media you include in the article should have proper provenance and licensing. A-class and feature reviews will fail if this is not the case. You should examine the data pages for all media you use. I recommend making sure they have properly-filled {{Information}} templates that correctly identify it:

• who created the artwork, if known; if the photo of a 3d object, who took the picture
• where it came from (scan from book, source web site)
• when it was created (date of artwork creation, date of photograph, date of annotations)
• license

Sometimes a website will display an image, but not provide information on its provenance. It may be possible to locate provenance information elsewhere, but you need to be certain it is for substantially the same image. If you crop a map and make detailed annotations on it (using Inkscape or some other image editing tool), you should document these things. If an image has had more than minimal color or contrast corrections made to it, these should be documented. If you cannot locate provenance information on an image, don't use it. If a reputable authority (like a museum) states the artist is unknown, this may be taken as authoritative, but must be cited/linked on the image data page.

Who to credit as author of an image can be complex. As a general rule, it is not solely the uploader, unless s/he took a photograph of something that is not an artwork (like a battlefield). All relevant creative forces (sculptor, painter, engraver, photographer, editor who drew on the image) should be credited.

An image that is a collage or montage of images must have all of these things done to each of the constituent images.

Neutrality

Make sure that all participants receive appropriate recognition, and explanation of their motives and movements. I believe this is important in the colonial sphere, where it serves to counter systemic bias by ensuring that the wrongs of early histories (which might underreport or minimize the motives and contributions of Native Americans in any number of events) are corrected, and the biases of sources can be eliminated. Just because a source uses biased language (often true of 19th century histories) does not mean you can't use the source, but you should eliminate bias in your description of events.

Sourcing

If you want an article to pass a MILHIST A-class review, your sources should broadly reflect what is available on the subject. If major sources describing an event do not appear in your bibliography, you may well be called on to explain why. (For example, Battle of Trenton failed a feature candidacy in part because a significant source was not consulted.) If you are unable to access such sources yourself, you should either enlist the aid of other editors, or resign yourself to being unable to promote the article further. The tactics of the Ushant battle is fairly well described in a number of sources, but details on the politics before and after may require reference to sources other than naval histories. Sometimes the best accounts of an event are to be found in biographies of its participants. (One of the best accounts of the comparatively obscure Battle of Blandford is in a biography of General William Phillips, who led the British attack.)

Layout and formatting

Military actions and campaigns usually have a {{infobox military conflict}} at the start. Populate it with what your sources tell you. If the outcome is disputed or uncertain, say so. (I am agnostic on the characterization of events as "Decisive"; I find them to lead unnecessarily to discussion and/or edit warring.) The infobox may be followed by one or more campaignboxes, which ought to contain the event being described. Make sure the event appears correctly in bold when the campaignbox is transcluded in it.

Follow WP:LAYOUT for guidance on arranging the "end matter": sources, endnotes, further reading, etc. If you are prepping an article for formal review, scrub the "Further reading" and "External links" sections so that only materials truly germane to the subject appear. If there is more media on the event, include a link to a proper Commons category (which you should create if there really is that much media material and it does not yet exist). Endnotes should be formatted in a consistent manner (in terms of content and punctuation), and the source bibliography should also be consistently formatted. Public domain works that are freely available (e.g. through Google Books or Gutenberg) should have external links to the work. Works that were published (or republished) with an ISBN should include it; earlier works should include an OCLC number that serves a similar function. If journal articles are online (e.g. through JSTOR), external links should also be included for those locations.

The lead (per WP:LEAD) should contain a summarization of the article. Most battle article, unless they are describing a fairly large-scale event, should have a three paragraph lead, while large events and campaigns should probably have four paragraphs.