Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Barrosa

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Battle of Barrosa

[edit]

(Self nom): This article was an inaccurate stub when I got hold of it. It quickly evolved to B-class, and then a very constructive MilHist peer review (here, thanks to Cla68 and Jackyd101) allowed me to take it to MilHist A-class review (here), which passed. Since then, there have been various minor tweaks, and the article has been through LoCE (thanks to EyeSerene). I can't see anything more to be done to the article, so I'm proposing it here, for FA status. Thank you for your attention, and I shall endeavour to address any issues raised as soon as I am able. Carre 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still needs a copyedit and readthrough by an editor who hasn't seen it before. I am sure that the nominator does not find The first column engaged broke after a single British volley. disconcerting, but the poor reader must switch from The first column engaged the enemy to seeing engaged as an adjective. This is grammatical, but clumsy; the LoCE should have caught it. This is the first thing that caught my eye; are there more? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I know what you mean here - it could perhaps be The first column to be engaged broke? Although the to be may be considered redundant.
  • Again, I think I know what Although initially garrisoned by a mere 4 battalions of volunteers and recruits, the actions of the Duke of Albuquerque in ignoring the Spanish Junta's orders to attack Victor's vastly superior force allowed him to reinforce the city with his 10,000 men means, and that him is the Duke; but I'm not sure, and the reader ought to be. "Use the right word, not its second cousin."
I assume the city, not the actions, was garrisoned; try The city's garrison was only...; but the Duke of Albuquerque ignored his orders from the Junta and, instead of attacking..., if that is what you mean. If I find more samples, I'll put them on the talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Your suggestion is better. More suggestions on talk page much appreciated, and I'll stick another request at LoCE in the FAC section and hope it gets attention. Carre 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have no problems with either of your suggestions, so they're done. Did you give up after spotting those two, take a break from the reading, or just didn't find anything else? (I'd be surprised if the latter!) Thanks for the assistance. Carre 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been through LoCE again (in proofread mode), but I'm not convinced it's an improvement. Carre 15:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reads, in general, as though you have been trying to stick too closely to a single source, and your source has crept into your writing. I don't think you would answer a Talk page question "So what happened at Barossa?" with this, but your reply there would be better writing. For example:

  • Use politic, take it out, or explain that the Spanish were annoyed at Graham; but don't link it; that's as bad as putting slang in quotes.
  • whilst?!?

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now I'm confused:
  • Alburquerque (in the article) hasn't lost an 'e'... nor has it gained an 'r': the spelling you may be more familiar with, the place in New Mexico, took its name from the town in Spain, but was misspelt. I could wikilink it, to clarify (Alburquerque, Badajoz)?
  • The article says that Cádiz was the seat of Spanish government, and further goes on to say the "ruling Spanish Junta".
[Edit again] - I found an alternative wikilink for Junta (Cádiz Cortes), which explains the role better than the previous one (2nd paragraph). Is that better? Carre 13:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was allowed to resign? Exactly as the article says - The ruling Spanish Junta, under pressure from widespread protests and mob violence, was allowed to resign - What's not clear?[edit] - misread the question, sorry. Carre 12:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dead ground" is a fairly standard military/MilHist term, but I suppose I could find something to replace it, although the cost would be wordiness.
  • politic was wiktionary linked following a comment by the last copyeditor, claiming the sentence didn't make sense. Since it clearly does, the wikt link was put in so a non-English speaker, unfamiliar with the term, could look it up. Much the same as any other wikilink.
  • whilst, indeed.
Carre 12:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary - just an attempt to summarise PMAnderson's comments above, and my actions in addressing them. Mainly for the sake of what remains of my own sanity. I don't mean to put any words into that reviewer's mouth, so if I misrepresent his concerns I apologise and hope he corrects any mistakes in the list.
  • First two comments (First column engaged, and initially garrisoned) - changed article to use PMAnderson's suggestions.
  • Alburquerque - as explained above, the article is correct, but wikilink added for clarification.
  • How large an area did the Junta control - better wikilink provided.
  • Who allowed the Junta to resign - "allowed to" removed; now reads only that the Junta resigned.
    • Calling the Cadiz Cortes a Junta is questionable, but I suppose it is Oman's usage. They were a National Convention, not a local committee; nor were they warlords.
  • Personally, I'd rather call it the Cortes, not the Junta, but it's not just Oman who uses the phrase (although, admittedly, most of the more modern single volume histories borrow hugely from Oman). Incidentally, for corroboration on the term Junta, you can see this, which one of our Spanish colleagues offered as a cite when he changed the number of the Regency from three to five (both being correct, as explained in the current citation). You may not have Spanish, but you should be able to get the gist (I don't know the language, and I understood it).
  • Correct - I think the current English interpretation stems from the military Juntas of South America during the 70s and 80s, especially around 1982! I trust we can leave Junta as is then, or perhaps change the term to Junta Suprema Central, with same wikilink. I think just Junta is better though. Another dead objection, I hope. Carre 21:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[←]Actually, a day later and re-reading your last, I think I may have misinterpreted. By "your inclination", did you mean my preference to call it Cortes rather than Junta? Junta being more accurate, but carrying the negative, military jackboot connotations. Carre 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "dead ground" - nothing done. If this is a blocking issue, I'll just remove the phrase on request, since I think explaining the term in the article would be detrimental.
    • I would suggest the use of some such phrase as "along sloping ground not visible to the French". There is no reason to use jargon when it is avoidable.
  • That version doesn't fit with the sentence - how about more cover and ground not visible... etc (just removing your "along", which is the bit that doesn't fit).
  • "Sticking to a single source" - no comment, other than look at the reference and bibliography sections before throwing accusations like that around.
  • wictionary link on "politic" - explanation for the wikt link addition given above (wasn't there in original nominated version).
  • "whilst" - not changed, and I have no plans to change it. If anyone really objects, they can go change it themselves.
    • Changed. This is 2007, not 1911. Btw, the same sentence asserted Victor's knowledge of the tactical problem involved. Do we have his orders, or his memoirs? Vague and unfounded assertions of this sort are endemic in military histories of a century ago; we should avoid such bloviation.
  • This was a single instance of whilst you were complaining about? There are more than one in the article! ;) I noticed your edit adding {{cn}} with edit summary "is this really Sir Charles" - Oman says "The move could only mean the garrison of Cadiz intended to come out. Accordingly, Victor resolved to stop its egress;" - so it's my paraphrase and editorialising, and I do still use whilst when writing :P You've since clarified anyway, and I have no problem with the more recent change.
Ahh, sod it - I bit the bullet and replaced all the remaining whilsts with while. Carre 20:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: whilst is still in common use in BE; it's considered to be a more formally correct usage than while (better for an encyclopedia article?), although the two are synoymous. I'm not suggesting you change it back... just resenting the dumbing down of the English language ;) EyeSereneTALK 12:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Eye, whilst is listed under Tony1's useful guide under "Misplaced formality". Fowler notes that it is less common than while and, when discussing among/amongst, even suggests that while has largely driven it out. I know you and I still use it, but it's not worth arguing about :). Annoyingly, I've had Fowler's work sitting on my bookshelf for the last 15 years without realising it, since it's disguised as volume III of the Oxford Library of English Usage, and I never considered consulting it. Serenity is the key! Carre 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely serious. I've read the Times and Guardian style guides ;) It's an interesting one though - a quick straw poll amongst my colleagues has us split at around 50/50 in usage (with the more literary ones preferring whilst). Amidst all the office controversy I've just started, I'd better get back to work ;) EyeSereneTALK 14:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the strike outs and clarifications. Carre 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If PMAnderson could strike through those specific comments he feels have been addressed to his satisfaction, then I can keep track of where I am. Similarly, if I've missed anything or misrepresented, please fix. Carre 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that I am trying to polish the prose because I have no problem with the substance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's no problem - help with the prose is appreciated. Additionally, all instances of whilst have now gone. The external link above (details Junta handing power to regency) verifies use of Junta. Dead ground now gone. A note on single cite per sentence: typically, I read the relevant part of all the sources before writing a paragraph, and paraphrased them all. Then I chose citations that best supported my paraphrasing - I did this rather than list all sources since I hate seeing multiple cites, one after another, especially mid-paragraph. Are we in a position to start a new list now? (Except for the politic one, which I'm not fussed about either way) Carre 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree firmly on multiple footnotes. You might want, on a new article, to use a single footnote per sentence of the form "Source A p. m. Source B, p. n. Source C, p. q, note 1." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Barrosa&oldid=1138455512"