Talk:Battle of Bailén/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for Good Article status. At first read, it is quite impressive. I enjoyed your style of writing, and appreciate the effort you went to with detail. There are a few issues that need some attention, but I think these will be easily addressed. At any rate, I'll watchlist the article and as long as progress is made, I'll keep the review open.

First, citations

Military History project guidelines require that every paragraph have an ending citation, or at least that is my take on them. You have several statements throughout that are not cited. I don't expect every sentence to be cited. When you've made a generalization, however, there should be some citation on that, according to the WPMH project guidelines. Personally, I have no problems with what you've done, but you do need to cite at least one source where it comes from.

Second, grammar (etc.)

Sentences such as this tangle me up with verbs. An uprising by the citizens of Madrid broke out on May 2, slew 150 French soldiers, and was violently stamped out by Marshal Murat's elite Guards and mameluk cavalry.[9] Was this a riot or an uprising? Did it last more than a day?

The quote about the rheumatic colic and Murat is fantastic, but it needs better context or explanation. Did someone say this at the time, or was this an historian's comment on the event?

Did Napoleon give priority to operations in the north, or did he prioritize several objectives in the north--if the latter, what were they?

presumably the 6 guns weren't actually under Valdecanos--consider rewording this sentence for clarity.

phrases like this: Napoleon wrote lightly... are ambiguous. He didn't press hard with his pen? He took the news lightly? (Unlike later, when he flew into a rage....?) These sorts of statements can be confusing to people who are not native English speakers and although this is an English language wikipedia, we shouldn't assume that all our readers will be English speakers.

ambiguous, or confusing word choices--for example, while patrols shot west (I suppose you must mean they moved quickly to the west, but you could mean they fired their guns to the west. I'm really not sure.)

"inspired the Austrians" Inspired them to do what? join the 5th coalition? Pick their noses? Go to church?

Aware neither that Dupont was preparing to move in his direction, nor that Vedel was now in fact drawing in behind him,[43] Reding, posting a few battalions to hold Bailén from whatever French formations might remain in the east, set off with his two divisions westwards July 18, intending to surround Andújar from the rear and smash Dupont against Castaños. Consider breaking sentences like this into two sentences, for the sake of readability, or of condensing it. Neither aware of Dupont's preparation to move in his direction, nor of Vedel's position behind B.(?) (or behind Vedel?) (or behind Reding?), Reding left a few battalions to hold B. and marched westward on July 18. He intended to surround Andujar from the rear, and smash Dupont...

miscellaneous MOS stuff

A precarious position as a sub heading will generate wrath from the MOS gnomes. So and so's precarious position might be a better choice, although it is unclear to me who was in the precarious position, except possibly all the French.

consistent dates. Either 5 July 1809 or July 5, 1809. Pick a format.

The right wings disengage

etc.

supporting images.

these are very good. Please consider giving us a map showing the location, generally, of the battle, not only the close up of of Vedel's activities on one afternoon. We could also use additional maps showing other strategic moves, if available.

sources

I'm a little concerned that almost half of your sources are memoirs of participants or 19th century national histories. Are these reliable sources of casualties, etc.? From my studies in the German and Swiss campaigns, I've found that the contemporaries tended to overestimate the enemy's casualties and under-estimate their own, or vice versa, depending on what they want to accomplish. Do you have access to Digby Smith's compendium of the orders of battle and the casualties?

These are examples of the kinds of problems I found. Generally, this is a fascinating article, and I'm glad you've invested the time in it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

since there has been no action on this in 2 weeks, I'm removing it from GA nominations. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: