Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Balaclava

Battle of Balaclava

I have recently rewritten this article in an attempt to bring Crimean War articles up to a higher standard. Comments and criticisms welcome. Thanks. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham, B.S.

Hi Rebel Redcoat. I have left a few citation needed tags in the article on a several sentences that probably should be cited. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ABS. I have sorted those citations out. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levi's comments

Lead

The lead is a little heavy for someone not familiar with military history (like me). For instance, a "General Liprandi" and a "General Scarlett" are both mentioned, but there is no mention of their nationality. Same for the "93rd Highlanders".

Also, it seems that although the Allies intended to besiege the Russian city, the Russians actually attacked the Turkish lines first. Unless this is common in military operations, maybe it deserves a special mention.

I am not entirely sure of your second point - the Russians attacked the Turkish redoubts first because they 'formed Balaclava's first line of defence'. I have done some work on the lead which I hope will clarify things a little better. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose/Grammar/Style

Lead

"Rejecting an immediate assault on Sevastopol the British under Lord Raglan, and the French under Canrobert, positioned their troops to the south of the port on the Chersonese peninsula and prepared for a protracted siege." - This sentence is a little awkward, try something like "The Allies decided against an immediate assault on Sevastopol and instead prepared for a protracted siege. The British, under the command of Lord Raglan, and the French, under Canrobert, positioned their troops to the south of the city."

See above. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On to Sevastopol

I'm not familiar with the finer points of British English, but it seems that "organize" is the American spelling of the word, and the majority of the article is written in British English. Either way is fine, just make sure the entire article is consistent. There are separate instances of "realise" and "realize" as well, for instance.

I didn't 'realize'. Organize is the OED spelling BTW, so I have kept it at that. Done Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Whilst Menshikov moved east, the Anglo-French-Turkish army, with the British in the van..." - What is a "van" in this context?

'van' is short for vanguard. I have made the change. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allied deployment

"as well as further Turkish troops." - Consider replacing "further" with "additional".

Yes. Done. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian plan

"...by the time the division had reached the Crimea Menshikov had decided to use them to attack the Allied rear from Chorgun, and march on Balaclava." - Consider moving the comma so it looks like "by the time the division had reached the Crimea, Menshikov had decided to use them to attack the Allied rear from Chorgun, and march on Balaclava."

Yes. Done Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Russian reconnaissance reports had also indicated that these outer defences were occupied by a mixture of Tunisians..." - What do Tunisians have to do with it? Are they mercenaries?

Remember this is the Ottoman Empire, so soldiers came from all over the Balkans and North Africa to fill the Turkish ranks. I will ammend this later to clarify the point. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

"Recent intelligence received by the British had indicated a major Russian attack was imminent, but after a considerable number of false alarms the previous week Raglan failed to act, believing that they were needlessly exhausting his men who were turned out on every report. But the latest intelligence proved accurate, and early on 25 October, just before 05:00, Liprandi’s troops of the 'Chorgun Detachment' left their camp and marched off in silence towards the Balaclava valleys." - Unclear/run-on, consider changing to "Recent intelligence received by the British had indicated a major Russian attack was imminent. Over the course of the following week there were several false alarms, during each of which the British troops were put on alert. On 25 October, however, just before 05:00, Liprandi’s troops of the 'Chorgun Detachment' left their camp and marched off in silence towards the Balaclava valleys. Raglan failed to act, considering it another false alarm that was needlessly exhausting his troops."

You are right - its wordy. Done Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"leaving his gunners with a clear view of No.1 redoubt on Canrobert's Hill." - Consider adding a "the" before "No. 1 redoubt".

I don't think that's necessary, it's a little clunky. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As they approached Canrobert's Hill, two signalling flags were seen flying to signify the approach of the Russians." - Consider changing to "As they approached Canrobert's Hill, two signal flags were observed, signifying the approach of the Russians."

OK. Done. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redoubts

"Some British help had arrived to assist the Turks on the Causeway Heights." - Consider changing to "British reinforcements arrived to assist the Turks on the Causeway Heights."

I have tweaked this. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Turks from these positions, having already witnessed their compatriots flight from No.1 redoubt and realising that the British were not coming to their aid, fled back towards Balaclava, again pursued by Cossacks who cut them down without mercy – the solitary British NCOs could do nothing but spike the guns." - This one needs some work. Consider changing to "The Turks in these positions, having already watched their compatriots flee from the No. 1 redoubt and realising that the British were not coming to their aid, fled back towards Balaclava. They were again pursued by Cossacks who cut them down without mercy, and the solitary British NCOs manning the cannons could do nothing but "spike the guns", rendering them unusable."

This aswell. Done. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Valley

"...he at first refused to comply – 'It is impossible for my division to move, as the greater portion of the men have only just come from the trenches [around Sevastopol]'." - Consider changing to "...he at first refused to comply, stating "It is impossible for my division to move, as the greater portion of the men have only just come from the trenches [around Sevastopol]."

I have restructured this sentence, eliminating the direct quote which was probably a paraphrase anyway. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph there are two military orders in italics, they should probably be enclosed by quotation marks instead, or presented as prose if they are not exact quotes.

Done. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryzhov's Advance

Since this section discusses the "Thin Red Line," maybe there should be a link to the full article at the beginning of the section.

That article is oddly titled 'The Thin Red Line (1854 battle)'. The Thin Red Line was not a seperate battle as this implies. I decided not to link to it at the begining of the section until it's sorted.

"Scarlett, notoriously short sighted..." - I could be wrong because it's British English, but "short sighted" should probably be hyphenated.

Correct. Done. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"He was to try to 'prevent the enemy carrying away the guns' but from his position he could not see any guns being carried away!"- Exclamation marks are generally inappropriate for encyclopedia articles, unless they're within a quote.

Done. Thanks.

All in all the prose and layout are great. Keep up the good work! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you Levi van Tine for that thorough review. I appreciate the time and effort you have taken to do that. Some excellent points made. I shall look over this further at some stage to make sure all is satisfactory. Thanks again. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. I read through the lead after you modified and I understand it better now. Being a military history layman, a "siege" to me means that there is an army attacking a city held by another army, and therefore for the purpose of this battle, the sieging army is the aggressor. For Balaclava, it sounds like the Allies made defenses of their own around the port city, and the Russians sallied and attacked those defenses. That's what made it sound unusual to me, but I think I get it now. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]