Talk:Battle of Albuera/copyedit

The following is copied from my and EyeSerene's talk pages, more to aid other editors to understand what the hell's been going on (slightly edited to address indents, but that's about it). Carre 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I'm back on the job; I've gone over the article offline & will post the results up in the near future (probably tomorrow). I also have one or two questions... I've stupidly left my working copy on my PC at work, so I'll be back in touch when I've got it in front of me :P EyeSerene^TALK 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted the CE on the Lead; the writing is certainly a lot better now (can't believe I wrote "army [...] were"!). It does seem like the lead is now a bit bloated, especially the second paragraph, but I'm not sure what and when I should address that. I can see bits that could be pruned without spoiling the intent, but I'm inclined to leave such pruning until I've finished all the supporting articles and can also cut down some of the excess detail in the body of this one. Even if I did prune that paragraph, I like it enough that I think I'd save the current version somewhere off-line and re-use it in the Lines article.

Am awaiting your questions with bated breath :) Carre 17:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - I did enjoy the break! I've found incorporating my copyedit into the article has basically turned into a further copyedit of my offline copyedit, but I'll crack on with this as quickly as possible.

Re the lead; I'm reworking a few bits now. I agree that the second para is perhaps a little bloated, but I sometimes find it awkward to strike a balance between summarising the article and structuring the lead to give enough context to a reader unfamiliar with the subject (the 'stand-alone article' bit of WP:LEAD). If you feel it unbalances the article (which is after all about the battle, not the background to it!), please chop away.

Re questions, my initial one is: am I correct in the assumption, from the context, that the majority of Soult's Badajoz garrison (the 11,000 men under Mortier) were not all stationed in Badajoz; hence many of them being driven off by Beresford's approach? Can Badajoz refer to a district as well as the town itself?

I'll get back to work ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My quick response to your quick response: Gates (the cited source) says this:

Reluctant to face such overwhelming numbers in open battle, Latour-Maubourg left 3,000 men in the fortress and a weak battalion in Olivienza and retired to the Andalusian border.

Oman, undoubtedly, provides more details, but it'll have to wait til tomorrow before I can elaborate more if the above doesn't answer your question. Carre 17:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[←]That does answer it, thanks. I just wasn't sure I'd understood that part correctly (I think it originally said that much of the garrison had been driven off, which seemed illogical if they were already in Badajoz). The only book I know I have in the house is Vol I of the Longford bio, and I can't find it! (Besides, like you I find her coverage of Wellington's personal life slightly better than her coverage of other stuff... although it's still a very good read). EyeSerene^TALK 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More questions for you (I'll just add them here as I go along):

"The Emperor's orders were based on outdated intelligence; by the time Soult received them, the situation had changed considerably." What had changed that Napoleon was unaware of (I'm guessing the existence of the Lines)?
Do we have a date for the despatch of Napoleon's orders?

EyeSerene^TALK 18:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh, now that one is really hard to answer, and in retrospect "the situation had changed considerably" may be slightly (but not totally) misleading. Let me give you an example: Masséna sent a dispatch to Napoleon, then in Paris, in October 1810. Foy, who was carrying the dispatch, didn't arrive in Paris until November. Resulting orders to Soult weren't sent 'til December, and weren't received until late January 1811. Therefore, we instantly have orders based on intelligence 4 months old. Now, what had changed? Soult had previously been pressed by Boney to send a small force into Portugal, but there was no way Soult could do that (for the reasons mentioned in the article - 30,000 allies, 6 fortresses), and so by the time the most recent orders arrived, in Jan 1811, Soult had already launched his expedition into Extremadura and against Badajoz. I actually had a lot of difficulty unwinding the time-line on that particular part, thanks to the lack of the instant comms we take for granted these days; off the top of my head, in addition to the 2 pages cited for that statement, Oman has a further 4 or 5 discussing the problems and reasons behind the difference between what Soult did, and what Boney wanted (and Boney even approved of Soult's actions, at first).

I'm beginning to think that I should perhaps rewrite that small part, because as it stands, it's not ideal. We have Boney sending orders to Soult to send small forces; we have Soult ignoring those orders. We have Soult coming up with his own plan to take Badajoz, we have Boney approving, then disapproving, and we have the final orders sent after Soult had already set off. A real mess!

I think this partly addresses your additional question, too. (additional question added while I was answering the first)

By the way - is it easier for you to do as we have been, using each other's talk pages, or easier to concentrate in one place? I'm easy either way. Carre 19:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, here's an idea for an easy get-out-of-jail change though... just say that Soult had already set off into Extremadura by the time he got those last orders. It's not inaccurate, but it would need a bit of a tweak to the passage, maybe along the lines of small forces orders, ignored cos of 30,000 men & fortresses, Soult goes in, new orders, too late. How's that? Carre 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to respond to your question! I'm easy too - if you want to keep as we are, or answer under the questions here, or copy everything to the article talk page I'll just follow along. EyeSerene^TALK 19:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a go at the "Background" section and tried to incorporate your explanation without disrupting it too much. Is this suitable? EyeSerene^TALK 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) From "Beresford invests Badajoz": who or where is Estremos? Have I missed a reference to this earlier in the article? EyeSerene^TALK 18:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estremos is an ancient Portuguese town, near Elvas. When I looked for it, there wasn't a wikipedia article on it, that I could find, so it's not linked. However, I just did a quick google, and find that it's more accurately called Estremoz, for which there obviously is an article - the misspelling is down to the sources. I think wikilink, without a pipe to the spelling used in sources; no need to perpetuate out-dated British prejudices and mistakes in foreign names.

PS your change to the first para of prelude reminded me of a mistake I'd spotted ages ago, meant to fix, and never got around to. I made a few changes, which you probably saw. I think they're ok, but you might want to run your eyes over them (basically, my original text, and your updates, left the impression Beresford just stopped, and then the article never explains why he carried on. I re-read the source this afternoon, and came up with the new words) Carre 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good ;) From Armies gather: "By 9 May Beresford was back at Badajoz..." In the previous section we last left him at Valverde and Albuera - this may need some additional text to clarify (obviously he had arrived and invested the fortress, since that's the section heading, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere) EyeSerene^TALK 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penultimate para of "Beresford invests..."; while the artillery pieces were being brought up from Elvas, he took a part of his army to chase off what small garrisons and other forces the French had left scattered around in Extremadura. With a bit of time, I could probably find where these garrisons were (Alburquerque springs to mind, for one), but too much detail, I think. Yes, it is looking good, although I'm in two minds about having the three days to retake Olivenza in brackets; Oman and Fortescue are pretty scathing about that, and call it disgraceful that it took so long - the French garrison there was tiny. Oh, you've already changed that ;) Carre 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think it's necesary to detail every small action in the lead-up to the big show. It was the word "back" that jumped out at me - from the previous section, I wasn't aware he had arrived (trying to follow it from a casual reader's perspective). I'll add in some additional explanation, but I'm always a bit wary doing this as I don't want to introduce errors or unsourced info. Anyhoo, another item for your expert perusal: I'm not familiar with the description "provisional Portuguese brigade", although I'd guess it means something similar to the 'odds and sods' unit-of-detachments (or kampfgruppe if we're being kinder)... does this need further explanation or a suitable wikilink? EyeSerene^TALK 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[←]Looking back, I realise I misread your question. I thought you meant nothing said he'd left Badajoz, but now I see you meant there was nothing to say he'd ever actually got there! Reviewing the sources, you're quite right - that section is misnamed, since he didn't get to Badajoz at that point. He threw his cavalry forward to Albuera first, on the 10th, and the infantry moved up, also to Albuera, the following day (except 4th division) and so bypassed Badajoz. The investment actually began around 20 April, under the direction of Wellington, who was paying a flying visit while Beresford was elsewhere. I think rename the section "Allied investment of Badajoz" or some-such, and I shall add a bit tomorrow to explain the Wellington visit and the commencement of the siege.

The "provisional Portuguese brigade" was a temporary brigade, formed exclusively for this campaign. It was made up of two battalions from the garrison at Elvas and a detached light battalion of skirmishers. Commanded by one Colonel Collins. Afterwards, the various parts returned to their proper commands, hence provisional I guess. Carre 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll remove the 'explanation' I added to the Beresford invests... section, and leave the clarification there to you ;)

While we're on section names, I did wonder if Organization might be more accurately named as Order of battle? EyeSerene^TALK 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle would be the proper term, certainly. During the MilHist peer review, Kirill recommended that, if the section remains, it would be better in table format. Do you know how to make tables in wikiland? I don't, but I could try and learn, I guess. Sources also needed if the section stays, but I can find them easily...I can think of three off the top of my head ;). I was thinking of ditching the whole section, although someone spent a lot of time getting it together (that part was there before I rewrote the lot).

Question: in "leading to his replacement as the Allied cavalry commander with Major General William Lumley", should that be "replacement [...] with", or "replacement [...] by"? I can't make up my mind. Carre 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last first: I had been puzzling over exactly that too ;) My initial instinct was 'by', but the more I thought about it, the less sure I was. If you've been thinking the same though, maybe I'll change it now, then see how it reads when I come to it fresh tomorrow.

Re tables, I can certainly do that if you like. In fact I'll do that as my next (and last) project for this evening; then if you later decide to bin the section at least it won't be purely for formatting reasons. EyeSerene^TALK —Preceding comment was added at 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, not enough tildes (or too many?) on my last :P. I've now tabulated that section; it's still a bit rough around the edges, but it gives an idea of how it impacts on the article (and how much information is missing!). Any thoughts on whether or not this is a worthwhile exercise to continue with? EyeSerene^TALK 21:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(addendum) I also noticed that the number of French arty pieces doesn't match your sourced infobox number, but I guess it'd all have to be checked (and if you're planning to source it anyway...) EyeSerene^TALK 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better, but it's a huge chunk of the article...still, this isn't a paper encyclopaedia anyway! I think I can find more of the missing info on the Spanish and French units, but I've tried in vain to get proper ranks and first names for many of the commanders in the past. Infobox sorted - it was wrong. Oman doesn't actually give the number of cannon, just the number of men and occasionally number of batteries, but Gates does give 48 for the French. A battery is 6 pieces, so 8 allied batteries also comes to 48, not 50. Is it possible to stretch the table so it occupies the whole width of the article space? Something I always try to do with my word docs at work, makes it fit in a bit better.

On the with/by thing - I think they both look a little odd, which perhaps hints at something else fundamentally wrong with the sentence, but I can't, for the life of me, spot it. Maybe fresh eyes tomorrow, or a reword, or even asking someone like Tony1 for advice. Carre 22:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table stretched and sentence reworded. Better? EyeSerene^TALK 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[← again]Definitely with that troublesome sentence. The table also looks good, and the wiki-markup doesn't look too complicated either! I may play with it a little tomorrow (too late now), after reading the relevant help pages, and I'll try and add some of the missing details too. Seems there's still a bit more needed on this one than I had anticipated, but we'll get there. Once again, it has been a pleasure working with you! Carre 22:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit (contd)

Still chipping away ;) Another one for you: From Destruction of Colborne's brigade (para 1):, "...Stewart ordered an advance." - does this refer to the entire 2nd div? EyeSerene^TALK 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The table is looking vastly better with the additional info. EyeSerene^TALK 16:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch that one. Fortescue says that it was the right that charged. Checking the corresponding bit in Oman, it was Colborne (spelling :wink:) alone, not the entire division. I was just about to change it following your question, when I noticed you had made a change yourself. A possible alternative text could be something like (with nowiki'd refs for your convenience):

"On the British right Colbourne's men continued to trade volleys with the French, and seeing the French attempts at retreat, fixed bayonets and charged.<ref>{{harvtxt|Fortescue|1917|p=197}} and {{harvtxt|Oman|1911|p=383}}.</ref>"

I wish I could find more about Werlé's and Godinot's brigades for the table. All Oman says is that they were from Godinot's independent division. Haven't checked Fortescue yet, and Weller may have a something.

I'll be heading out for the evening in an hour or so, so any questions after that I'll address tomorrow. Any before, I'll try and answer before I head off. Thanks for all the good work again. Carre 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS when you get to the next section, you need to watch out for spelling on Hoghton too; Hoghton, not Houghton...I lost count of how many times I made that mistake! Carre 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - thank you for that. I have added in your suggestion, so hopefully that's now correct too. Would "the British left" in that section also refer to Colborne (ie the left end of his brigade)? It's just to check I have the chronology right now: 1. Colborne's brigade engages Girard's flank 2. They trade fire 3. Colborne's left charges but gets driven back 4. Colborne's right prevails after further musketry 5. The entire brigade advances (& gets caught by the French cav) EyeSerene^TALK 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. At this point, only Stewart's first brigade (Colborne's) was involved. Hoghton's was the 2nd brigade, and as you see, they only came up after Colborne had been destroyed. Carre 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think that's clear. I won't get the chance to do much more tonight, although I may attempt the next section. Have a good evening ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Questions re "Hoghton's ordeal" for when you have the time:

Did Girard's division retire when Gazan's moved up, or did his remaining men support Gazan's assault?

Girard's division started to pull back, got entangled in Girard's. Oman writes "There was a fearful confusion while the new columns were thrusting their way to the front, and they were never properly formed. For the rest of the battle the two divisions formed a dense mass of 8,000 men, which looked like one solid clump, without much vestige of a regular formation" (Oman, 1911, pp. 385–386).

From the text, Girard is still commanding the renewed assault (presumably Gazan handed over his div?)

Girard was the senior officer, and had overall command of both V Corps divisions.

"The French could only deploy a skirmish line against Abercrombie's brigade..." Do we know why?

It might be better to say they "only deployed", rather than they "could only". I get the impression that it was down to the terrain of the slope in front of Abercrombie, but can't find a specific source for that.

"...face the 8,000 men of V Corps" We've got Gazan's div listed as 4,200 - where have the extra men come from? (also, should this be 'V Corps' or '2nd Div'?).

V Corps. Answered in 1st bullet, I think.

"Ordinarily a British line could be expected to beat a French column..." I think this needs a specific citation (and maybe further explanation?)

The Weller citation at the end of the next paragraph may be enough; it can be repeated, if you think it needs an immediate ref. Alternatively, I guess the possible contentious word is "Ordinarily". From Weller: "The British line was thin indeed, but was firing continuous volleys. If musketry only had been used, the French column would have lost quickly, for the British line extended around both their flanks. But French artillery more than offset their musketry disadvantage." (Weller, 1986, p. 177). Perhaps a better wording, to avoid "Ordinarily".

The text reads as though Gazan's men attacked in a single column of division. Is this correct?

As bullet 1. They approached in divisional column, but in the mess caused by Girard's pulling back, they never really managed to form up into any decent fighting formation. Going back to Weller, he suggests they formed one huge column, 200 men wide, 40 ranks deep (p. 177 again).

EyeSerene^TALK 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's answered those ;) I shall go and have a browse of the article now. Carre 10:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that additional ref for the ce changes based on the above - I thought it might need one, but it's also an interesting point well worth mentioning. EyeSerene^TALK 20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - no problem; indeed, digging that one out made me spot the typo on one of the others (only 100 pages out ;) ). And the only book in my library to be envious about is the early (1962) edition Weller...that one is definitely worth being envious of! Oman can be got pretty cheaply these days, on the Greenhill reprints, and Fortescue & Napier are, of course, available on some nice Gutenburg-esque web-sites. Carre 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, it is an interesting point, and you conveyed it much better than I could have done; you have a way with words that enhances the tale very well. Accretion, indeed :) Carre 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) OK, last lap - apologies for the delay in finishing, but I've had a busy few days. However, we're nearly there ;) I haven't really done much to the last few sections, but there were a couple of Wiktionary bits I ought to check with you:

Is it necessary to link 'beleaguered'?
In "Consequences", I linked 'sally', but maybe linking to 'sortie' would be better?

EyeSerene^TALK 20:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: the Battle of Albuera order of battle is looking really good. Your research, as always, is highly impressive! EyeSerene^TALK 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me. On the links, there's no real need for 'beleaguered', no. I don't remember why I linked it in the first place...I possibly thought it was an unusual enough word to warrant it, but remembering the objection to 'politic' on Barrosa, it's probably better to lose the link. For 'sally', maybe sally would be better, although deliberately linking to a DAB page goes against the grain! If linking to 'sortie' instead, would you still pipe to the word 'sally'?

All-in-all though, the whole lot looks pretty good now. I still think it's not ready for FA yet; not because of the prose, but because the Background and Prelude sections are just too long. I think I shall take it to GA now though, and the time that whole process takes may be enough to allow me to write at least one of the Badajoz siege articles and copy some of the text from here into the new article. I have Battle of the Gebora to push through the whole process anyway :)

Yet again, good work! I think I've monopolised your time enough for now, and the GA Sweeps are suffering as a result. Be prepared for a cheeky request for further assistance in the future though ;) Carre 08:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, it's been my pleasure. Re sally/sortie, I'm with you on deliberately linking to DAB pages, so maybe sortie is the one to use. I have no real preference for either word; 'sally' is also perhaps more archaic, but I'll leave it to your judgement!

It's surprised me that there's still so much to be done on articles in this area. I mean no disrespect to its past contributors, but I was rather surprised by the Battle of Vitoria article when I ran across it the other day... it's tempting to weigh in, but I have neither the time or the sources available to make a proper job of it at the moment. Maybe one for the future? Anyway, I'm happy to have a small part in your Peninsular War project (a period that has always fascinated me) - further requests are welcome any time ;) EyeSerene^TALK 11:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is sources, I think. Everyone seems to rely on Gates, and although his is an excellent single-volume history of the war, it just doesn't have enough detail in it. My first cut at Barrosa used only single-volume works as references, and I very soon got told I needed more detail! Oman was out of print for such a long time, I don't think people realise they can get the Greenhill reprints relatively cheaply now. I wouldn't expect to pay much more than a tenner for any single volume of the set. Add to that the availability of Fortescue and Napier on Gutenberg style sites, there's really no excuse any more. Maybe I'll get round to doing them all eventually ;)

Anyhow, back to digging out more names and ranks for the OOB :D That's proving frustrating... depending on source, the ranks are variously Lt-Col, full Col, Brig, or Brig-Gen for the same person! Carre 11:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]