Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Carillon/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: -- Philcha (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. -- Philcha (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

[edit]

Structure

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Geography

[edit]
  •  Done "Fort Carillon is situated on a point of land between Lake Champlain and Lake George, at a natural point of conflict between French forces moving south from Canada and the St. Lawrence River Valley across the lake toward the Hudson Valley, accessible near the southern reaches of the Lake" makes like the Feench were fighting each other. Do you mean French moving south were likely to encounter British and/or American forces moving in a roughly opposite direction (to & from where?)? --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's clear. --Philcha (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean File:MontresorNewYorkState1777Detail.jpg, it doesn't work for me. If there's one where the features are there but not labelled, I'll show you how to use {{Annotated image}} to label features. --Philcha (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific. Between the three maps now in the article, what terms are not present in them that you are looking for? Magic♪piano 21:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These old maps are illegible even in the largest view that WP has. I was hoping for one that has clearer contrast fo light and colour, and more diagrammatic, for example as at Battle of Marathon. --Philcha (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can work with the graphics/mapping lab to produce better maps, but that will have to wait until I'm not traveling. (I will note in passing that I've had more than a dozen GAs passed with similar maps that are hard to read unless embiggened, including Montresor's 1777 map. You're the first reviewer to complain about them.) [[User:Magicpiano|<span style="background-color:khaki;
While waiting to see if the lab had any free hands, I decided to do some work of my own on the Montresor map. Let me know if what I've done is useful, and if further work on it would satisfy your concerns. (This sort of work is tedious, so I'd rather not continue unless it's clear that it is worth doing so.) Magic♪piano 16:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your version File:MontresorNewYorkState1777DetailBW.jpg has clearer contrast and lots of clutter removed. I experimented in my Paint Shop Pro and I think (taste, perhaps) that -10% brightness and +30% contrast is a little clear still. I don't want to create another version so haven't saved. Would you like to check how -10% brightness and +30% contrast in your editor. --Philcha (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tinkered some with the brightness and contrast, with the effect that the contrast is now somewhat higher. (It may not show up right away -- I've purged the article, but it's still showing the previous version.) Magic♪piano 14:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look as good as it's going to me - thanks. --Philcha (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY I'm happy with "Mount Defiance ... provided an excellent firing position for cannon aimed at the fort". However I'd move ""Were I to be entrusted with the siege of it, I should require only six mortars and two cannon" to the analysis of Abercrombie's apparently dismal performance. BTW by the standards of the time and that theatre, is "six mortars and two cannon" modest, average or a lot? --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the word "only" speaks to your question. I'm reluctant to move this quote (and some of the others) -- I'd rather have them sprinkled through the article than concentrate them (which I see as a consequence of your suggestion).
Fair comment. And Pontleroy was commenting on the site, not on Abercrombie. Leave it as is. --Philcha (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearer than 18th cent cartography :-) --Philcha (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
  •  Done Can you provide broader strategic context? Since the British took the initiative, I guess the strategic context would mainly about British objectives. E.g. (hypothetically) to protect the N American colonies for their own sake and/or to deprive the French of resources from Canada and/or to divert French troops with their transports and escorts from other theatres of the Seven Years' War such as India. --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Comment Added {{main}} for context pointer.[reply]
    The {{main}} is good for those who want detailed accounts, but WP wants each article to be self-supporting as far as feasible (can't remember the name of the guideline, but I've seen it). So I think an explanatory sentence would be helpful for non-specialist readers. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to add more strategy. Magic♪piano 17:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The Carillon campaign was one of 3 - what were the others? What was the overall objective of the 3? If that looks like going into too much detail, where's the "Further information" link? --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Added a mention.[reply]
    Nice summary, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I think "Pitt's choice of Abercrombie, a relatively undistinguished military man, was likely made at least in part out of political considerations; Abercrombie's family had powerful political connections" could be more concise, by combining the two clauses. --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In "Pitt may also have been sensitive to military seniority — he probably wanted to have George Howe, who was skilled in tactics and a dynamic leader, lead the army. Rather than putting Howe in command, he appointed him a brigadier general under Abercrombie," I think "Pitt may also have been sensitive to military seniority — he probably wanted to have George Howe, who was skilled in tactics and a dynamic leader, lead the army" is confusing. I'd be inclined to structure this passage as e.g.: Pitt probably wanted to have George Howe in command; but Pitt was constrained by military seniority; as a compromise Pitt placed Howe a brigadier general under Abercrombie. --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done What's "New France"? --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Comment Wikilink is there -- I don't explain what Connecticut is either.[reply]
    •  Done Now I've read New France, my impression is that New France was short-lived and changed rapidly around this time - it started as a broad stripe from Newfoundland to Louisiana, but British pressure fragmented it. I don't know whether Vaudreuil was nominally governor of the whole of New France (difficult, giving 18th century communications) or just the modern Canada and NE USA. Was there a specific French name for the Canada and NE USA theatre of war? If so, that would be useful, but would still need a short explanation such as "Canada and NE USA" - this is English WP, so we can't assume readers will know French historical and political perspectives. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your hypothetical Indians would be more likely to understand Connecticut, which is extant and well-defined, than New France, which is extinct and changing (usually reducing). ---Philcha (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I've also wondered how the Indians will affect WP in 10-20 years time. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to briefly describe New France. Magic♪piano 17:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both location and cause - nice find! --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done What was Montcalm's actual strategy? For extra points, how would he have coped if the British had split their forces, over-stretching the French? --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Comment Good question. The best description I think I saw (from Nester, if I can find it) was "hopeful defense".[reply]
    "hopeful defense" sounds fine if you can find the citation - I can believe that Montcalm's inferior resource levels left him few options. --Philcha (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you found and used the citation you mentioned. --Philcha (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Should explain general location of Fort Duquesne (? Pennsylvania) and Louisbourg (? Nova Scotia)

--Philcha (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British preparations

[edit]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French defensive preparations

[edit]
All resolved! --Philcha (talk)

Bernetz Brook

[edit]

Green tickY Looks OK. --Philcha (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portage road

[edit]
The chronology problem is apparently that Abercrombie decided on 7 July to attack on 8 July, then the article covers the coucil of war on evening of 7 July, and finally Clerk's 2nd reconnaissance early on 8 July. The article handles the activities in the sequence of of the decisions made by Abercrombie, but some of these had effect on the 7th and some on the 8th. The simplest course is to be explcit about all dates and then look to see if any can be omitted without unclarity. It would also help if we had times of day for some events on 7 July, as it was a busy day - troops return from Bernetz Brook; John Bradstreet's advance party secures sawmill crossing; main army camps; Abercrombie's decisions. --Philcha (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the language correctly reflects the order in which things occurred, with conditional language for things planned to happen in the future. I'm not sure about which actions you think the timing lacks clarity. Magic♪piano 10:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps you've studied the subject so thoroughly that you take your own knowledge for granted. Someone unfamiliar with the subject needs more pionters.
"Abercrombie then sent Lieutenant Colonel John Bradstreet ... fortify both the summit and the base of Rattlesnake Hill" looks like all in the same adyay - unspecified, I'd guess 7 July.
"Lévis arrived at the fort that night with his troop of 400 regulars" - "that night" is a relative term, but relative to which day?
"Abercrombie held a war council that evening" - relative to which day, rememberin g that the aside about Lévis' actual time interrupts the flow. --Philcha (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Abercrombie decided that they had to attack the next morning" - apparently A decide on 7 July, intending to attack on 8 July. --Philcha (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in this section except the last sentence takes place on July 7. I just don't understand what in it causes you to think any of it might occur on any other day -- the sentence ordering Bradstreet follows a sentence identifying the day as July 7. (If you really feel this is problematic, please get a second opinion.) Magic♪piano 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear to someone like you who has studied the battle, but not to a non-specialist reader. Clarifying this sort of thing is one of the functions of a GA review, for example I nominated Fossils of the Burgess Shale for GA and the reviewer wants clarification of some reasoning that academics and even arm-chair paleontologists like me regard as elementary, but non-specialist readers will not have as part of thier background knowledge.
All you need is a handful of mentions of the dates: July 7 at the top of the section (if I got that wrong, you really need to explain) and against for Lévis' arrival; in context that should also be enough to imply that A's council of war was on July 7. --Philcha (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My problem has nothing to with specialist vs. not; I think it's more a question of basic reading comprehension. I'll make some changes, but I (still) fundamentally don't understand how you read this section (especially given the lead-in from the previous section) to arrive at a date other than July 7. Without this understanding, I cannot know that I've fixed the problem. Magic♪piano 14:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting frustrated. There's not a lot with my reading comprehension. The last sentence of the preceding section ended with Brit troops returning on July 7. However "Abercrombie then sent Lieutenant Colonel John Bradstreet and a sizable force down the portage path" probalby but not cetainly refers to the same day. Then "Abercrombie decided that they had to attack the next morning, hopefully before Lévis and his supposed 3,000 arrived. Lévis arrived at the fort that night with his troop of 400 regulars," it's unclear whether L arrived on the 7th or 8th - unless the reader refers back to the lead ("was fought on July 8, 1758") or forward to "Battle lines form", where one neds 2 sentences - "The battle began on the morning of July 8 ..." and "... while Lévis commanded the Bearn, Guyenne, and La Reine battalions on the right ..." to make it clear that L must have arrived earleir, presumably on the 7th. Yes, one can work it out with a bit of logic - but why make it difficult when it can be made easy? --Philcha (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've nailed the chronology. --Philcha (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle lines form

[edit]
I'm afraid I found it illegible, even at max magnification. I think a more cartoony style would be more effective - e.g. red & blue for opposing forces, green for flat(tish) land and brown for hills as in relief maps, pale bue for water, etc. --Philcha (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One learning experience with Inkscape later -- is File:CarillonBattleSmall.png an improvement? (See also File:CarillonBattle.svg for a fully scalable map with detailed annotations.) Magic♪piano 14:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an improvement! Has you ever tried {{Annotated image}} (see template doc for examples)? I use it a lot, mainly for biology diagrams. One ogf it's advantages is that you can easy the placing of the annotations and the displayed size of the image. --Philcha (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I experimented a bit with adding an imagemap overlay for giving detail on the troops, but the small size of the blocks makes even getting those to work well a difficult user experience. I've changed it so that clicking on the image goes to the SVG file that is zoomable. Magic♪piano 21:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. It's still a great improvement, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

[edit]
  •  Done What's the relevance of "Abercrombie, who has widely been recorded as being absent from the battlefield during much of the battle, was actually present near the back of the British formations"? --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Comment It's relevant because this article is contradicting something that often appears in other descriptions of this battle.[reply]
    •  Done That raises questions of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Can you show that the sources that say Abercrombie was present near the back of the British formations are more respected by scholars than those that say he was absent? --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is mostly a historical problem with long tentacles. It was often said in older histories,then repeated for more popular treatments. I believe both Nester and Chartrand (which I have only seen in university and research libraries, and are thus not likely to be read by large numbers of people) have it this way -- they appear to me to be state-of-the-art detailed research on this action (certainly more so than Anderson, who is writing for a popular audience). Magic♪piano 21:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you present the older and recent more views. If you find Anderson too "pop hist", can you find more authoritative sources for the older view? --Philcha (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also realised that "Abercrombie, who has widely been recorded as being absent from the battlefield during much of the battle, was actually present near the back of the British formations" is in an odd place in the section. If it were a general comment, I'd expect it either at the top of the section or in section "Battle lines form". In its current palce, it suggests A's location was a factor in the defeat, but without explanation or citation. --Philcha (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that Francis Parkman was one of the sources of the "Abercrombie absent from the battlefield" meme. I believe the modern consensus is that Parkman was a better writer than historian -- not that he was a bad historian, but some modern historians, notably Francis Jennings, have been quite critical of his scholarship. I added an explicit ref to Parkman in this section.
Nester's book was published 2008. Is there evidence that the book is now consenus among historians? If not, you can't write "was actually present near the back of the British formations" as a fact, it's one scholar's opinion and should be shown as such. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the chage, it's firm but objective. --Philcha (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Was "near the back of the British formations" (if verified) a basis of some of the criticisms of Abercrombie's conduct? This article and some of the w-linked articles make it plain Montcalm led from the front, and what little mil hist I've read indicates that Wellington also headed for the action. What was the most common pattern in generals of this time? --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a good question. The criticism that was historically levelled was that he was in his tent in camp and receiving dispatches, and not actually able to see the action to understand the nature of the unfolding debacle. Being able to see the action (at least until the smoke from all the musketry obscured everything) would be a notable counter to the allegation. There is a similar issue around Benedict Arnold's activities in the Battle of Freeman's Farm (was he or was he not actually on the battlefield). John Luzader, a park historian at Saratoga (see article for publication data on his recent book), claims that it was common at that time (1770s) for generals to be at the back where they can coordinate with each other (and notes that there is no real evidence Arnold was on the field). I haven't read anything on battlefield organization and tactics in the 1750s. Magic♪piano 21:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The striking contrast was with Montcalm's habit of being in the thick of the action. The conduct of at least of one the generals needs explanation - for example did British and French standard procedure differ at the time? Wellington obtained minor command appointments around 1796 and always took an active position. --Philcha (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the conduct of either general (or at least where each chose to place himself) requires explanation, beyond one of style. What requires explanation (and why this sentence is present) is that many older accounts of the battle falsely criticize Abercrombie for not being on the battlefield at all -- some have him sitting in his tent at the camp near the sawmill, well away from the action. Magic♪piano 20:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should include a slimmed down version of "many older accounts of the battle criticize Abercrombie for not being on the battlefield at all -- some have him sitting in his tent at the camp near the sawmill, well away from the action"[+ refs]. How good are the sources for regarded the older accounts as false? --Philcha (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention of an older account (Parkman) saying this. (I'll note in passing that the previous language more-or-less paraphrases Nester, and is not specific (beyond looking at his footnotes) as to who says what. That page of Nester may be available to you in Google Books if you want to look it up.) Magic♪piano 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more that needs doing here? Magic♪piano 13:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parkman vs Nester still to be resolved.
I've added language that should clarify the sources of who is claiming what on General Abercrombie's whereabouts. Mante wrote the first history of the war, in 1772. He interviewed veterans of the conflict. I suspect Parkman followed Mante, as have others. Nester cites a letter by Captain Abercrombie that was published (quite possibly for the first time) in 1998 in the Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Musem. Chartrand does not cite his source. Magic♪piano 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing found on comparisons of A. with other generals' approach, so that artreolved. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]
  •  Done Nothing about wider implications? Effect on British opinion? Effect on other theatres of the Seven Years' War, e.g. by diverting resources to N America? Possible encouragement for the Americans in the War of Independence? --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added a paragraph about the campaign consequences in North America (which will need citation when I get back to my books). I don't know if there was a direct consequence to resource allocation vis a vis the European theater -- considering the same forces would have been required to stay in NA to finish the conquest, there was probably not much direct effect beyond raising the cost of the war in NA by another year's campaigning. Magic♪piano 10:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy. --Philcha (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montcalm

[edit]
  •  Done "One key strategic failure he made was that he apparently never inspected the landing site at the north end of Lake George"? --Philcha (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "The fact that fortifications were built but not actually used by the French is one indication of this failure of strategic thinking. Nester estimates that contesting the first crossing on the portage road would have gained Montcalm an additional day for defensive preparations":

Abercrombie

[edit]
  •  Done Do we have modern evaluations of Abercombie's performance than Holden (1911)? The WP article gives that Abercrobie's actions were rash, and that a more patient combination of artillery and seige would have been better. --Philcha (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Comment Holden's description was apt, which is why I used it; I don't use him for much else. (By "The article" are you referring to Holden, or to this article?) The analysis here is from the sources cited, which date to 2000 or later. And yes, criticism is frequently focused on Abercrombie's perceived need for haste.[reply]
    I still find an inconsistency between Holden's words and the impression given in the rest of this WP article's comments on Abercrombie. --Philcha (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to resolve this. My impressions:
    • Holden's words like "imbecile", "coward", "unready", and "old woman". I can see how "unready" applies, as A.'s planning was poor. But I don't see the rest, as this WP article suggests rashness.
    • General Howe's death deprived the British army of their best officer.
    • A. ignored Clerk's advice to fortify both the summit and the base of Rattlesnake Hill.
    • Clerk misread the state of the French breastworks.
    • Looks like the floating batteries got mislaid. What happened to them?
    • Lead says "Abercrombie, confident of a quick victory, ignored several viable military options ..." --Philcha (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK that's what Holden said. I like the way you wording the relevant of the lead. --Philcha (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before the battle

[edit]
  • Was Abercrombie actually worse than most generals of the time in terms of intelligence? I remember a book about Wellington that said his intelligence was deficient at Waterloo. --Philcha (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Comment I don't know. I've read some battle descriptions that involve significant errors of judgment (e.g. Battle of Camden), but the second-guessing that has happened with this battle is significant.[reply]
Perhaps you can clarify what you're expecting in terms of changes here? I think the quality of British intelligence is reasonably clear from the current text. Magic♪piano 20:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was A noticeably worse at getting and using intelligence than a typical British general of the time?
I don't think sources I'm familiar with contain answers to this question, and I'm not sure what kind of other source I'd look at to get an answer. Magic♪piano 01:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is not FA, and I guess Abercrombie has not been as thoroughly analysed as Wellington. --Philcha (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. --Philcha (talk)

Tactics

[edit]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the battle

[edit]

Green tickY Looks OK --Philcha (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead (1)

[edit]
  •  Done Most of the facts in the first para are not reflected in the main text - see WP:LEAD. As a result they are also not supported by citations. It think most of the points in the 1st para shoudl be reflected in"Geography" and "Background". --Philcha (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Comment Please elaborate. Which sentences in the first para contain controversial assertions, and require additional citation?[reply]
Consider the titles of the two primary sources, please (Chartrand and Nester). Magic♪piano 20:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These titles imply that there was more than 1 "Battle of Ticonderoga" but not that one was also called "Battle of Carillon". You need to cite some text that says they were the same event. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what is either confusing or controversial. Some sources refer to this battle as Carillon, others Ticonderoga. Nester describes minor events that precede and follow the main event. Magic♪piano 01:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you fail to see what is either confusing or controversial because you are both a N American (Mass., in your user page) and a mil hist editor. I'm a Brit and, tho not a mil hist afficionado, not entirely ignorant of mil hist (see my comments in this GA review to Wellington and to maps of Classical Greek battles). But I'd never previously heard of "Battle of Carillon" or any of its pseudonyms - but noticed that there were at least 2 battles named "Battle of Ticonderoga". You're dealing with information outside the common knowledge of non-specialst readers, and that's the criterion for whether a citation is needed. I agree that WP:V can be a pain, but it's necessary in order to repel the POV-pushers and bar-room pundits, so I totally support WP:V despite the hassle it involves. You need the citation. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asserting that there is (or appears to be) some other "1758 Battle of Ticonderoga" this one might be confused with? I'm trying to understand what the confusion or controversy is that you think my biases are leading me to miss, and why the fact this battle might be known by more than one name creates problems for a non-specialist. (Please elaborate -- it will help me write better articles in the future.) Magic♪piano 15:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not generally known, at least outside N America, that the battle has 2 names. Hence the name not used in the article title is what needs a citation. You could have done the job 5 times over by now. --Philcha (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll thank you to not patronise me, or comment on how I choose to do my work or spend my time. This is the first time I've heard of the need to specifically cite alternate names for articles. (But yes, I have now cited it for you.) Magic♪piano 17:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this needs to be re-cited in every single F&I war battle? (I'm serious. Why is citing it in French and Indian War, where the various names applied to the conflict are discussed at length, not sufficient?) Magic♪piano 20:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 reasons I think of right now (probably more, but that's enough):
  • Articles are meant to be are free-standing as possible.
  • It would be mockery of WP:V if anyone who questioned a point had to go searching looks for a citation in another article - and if they don't find it, be told to look harder. The only sustainable way to implement WP:V is that each article provides the citations it needs for the points it makes. --Philcha (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My normal method to address this issue would be to remove the mention. However, I will point out that the multiple names of this war have a way of creeping into the battle articles ("Seven Years War" was recently added to another battle article on my watchlist), and this is not what I would call a long-term solution. So I can either (1) remove the mention of "War of Conquest", with awareness it may well be re-added, or (2) leave it uncited, since I (and presumably those who add these sorts of things) don't think it's particularly controversial or confusing. Which of these will pass the GA? Magic♪piano 01:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"those who add these sorts of things" probably "don't think it's particularly controversial or confusing" but, as I said above, the benchmark is non-specialist readers who are not schooled in the history of a specific region - as we both remarked in another section, fairly soon the largest single segment of en.WP will be Indians (sub-continental, not Native Americans). --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the mention of "War of Conquest", with awareness it may well be re-added, the predictable consequence is: it's re-added; but w/o a citation, someone will add a {{fact}} tag; if that's not fixed, the article will wind up at WP:GAR; and, if there are unfixed {{fact}} tags, it will fail. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed reference to "War of Conquest". Magic♪piano 17:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK --Philcha (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In the 2nd para:
Gad, sir, you're right. --Philcha (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done"The battle was the bloodiest of the war, with over 3,000 casualties suffered, of which over 2,000 were British" looks inconsistent with the "Casualties" section, and "the bloodiest of the war" is strong claim that needs strong backup from sources. --Philcha (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Comment It was certainly the bloodiest of the war in North America -- Battle of Sainte-Foy and Battle of the Plains of Abraham each had around 2,000 dead/wounded. Louisbourg had more "casualties" due to the large surrender. I can probably cite this (to e.g. Anderson or Nester) but I don't have access to my library. Cited Magic♪piano 11:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"bloodiest of the war" is not covered in the main text, see WP:LEAD. --Philcha (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to add mention to Casualties. Magic♪piano 16:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In the 3rd, the quote from Gipson should be in the main text - possibility in "Analysis", as Gipson's remarks appear to address the performace of both generals. --Philcha (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have not actually read the Gipson in context (the quote is repeated with attribution in a number of sources) -- while it is certainly reasonable to assume he's speaking of Abercrombie alone, I wouldn't state it one way or the other without actually locating a copy of Gipson. I also like the quote in the lead -- it's a pithy statement that I think leads well into the analysis summary. Magic♪piano 11:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't read the Gipson in context, you're not sure of its meaning and should not use it - see WP:V, etc. For example Darwin erroneoulsy quoted Aristotle as supporting a theory, when in fact Aristotle was summmarising Empedocles' theory in order to criticise it.
In the lead, the next sentence, "Many military historians have cited the Battle of Carillon as a classic example of tactical military incompetence", makes the same point concisely and effectively. --Philcha (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to clarify Gipson quote (and cite him directly). Magic♪piano 16:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually like seeing citations in the lead, as they suggest that the point is not mirrored in the main text. However, here the Gipson quote summarises the main text, so I'm happy to see a citation in the lead for that summary. --Philcha (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Green tickY The link checker report notes missing accessdate params on some links. -Philcha (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually put accessdates on links to Google Books -- I suspect Google isn't changing its book ids anytime soon. Magic♪piano 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I add accessdate, but the book details as enough any way. --Philcha (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Done The report shows 1 DAB link, but that's intentional, to inform readers of the other possibilities. --Philcha (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images

[edit]
Are you questioning the provenance of the image itself, or the fact that it represents the 1902 proposal? Magic♪piano 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expected one ref would do both - was I optimistic? --Philcha (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you follow the links of the image's provenance to the original image from which the SVG is derived, you get pointed to this page as the source of the image (which was apparently uploaded to Commons by its creator). I don't know how reliable this source is in the assertion of representational correctness; being somewhat biased against web resources (especially this one once I read the site's disclaimer) for factual matters, I'd rely on

Fraser, already cited for the rest of the flag business (and clearly more scholarly in appearance, since he provides a bibliography), who provides a description of the flag, but not an image. Magic♪piano 17:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'll have to be Fraser - I Googled and I'm astonished that there's not WP:RS with a pic. --Philcha (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One Quebecois editor of my acquaintance (when I was pursuing this flag business) claimed that the Fraser (which I don't think has actually been printed) is pretty much the definitive English-language resource on the vexillological history of Quebec. I've duly cited it. Magic♪piano 20:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead (2)

[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)


Thank you for your detailed comments. Just scanning them, I don't think any of your issues or questions appear intractable -- I have period maps that are appropriate, and somehow managed to forget adding them (this is one reason I get reviews). However, your review hits at an awkward time -- I am traveling, and will have limited internet access after this weekend for about 2.5 weeks. I will try to answer your issues this weekend, but I am without access to my usual libraries.
In re your request for edit windows, morning and later evening Central European Time (GMT+1) are my most likely times of activity. Magic♪piano 06:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The length of GA review queues in some subjects makes it quite common for reviews to appear at awkward times. Since you've explained and have responded to some comments, I'm happy to be fairly patient. I also appreciate that I may sometimes be slow to respond, as GA reviews and other WP activities and real life activities may create busy periods for me. In such cases I won't take offence if you post a reminder on my Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please sign each of your individual responses, so we can see who said what:
As mentioned above, for logistical reasons I'm unlikely to continue work on the article until somewhere around October 12, due to significantly limited time and internet access. Magic♪piano 18:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, it'll be a shorter wait than you had from nomination to start of review. Send me a message went you're ready. Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. I've made some more edits today. I think I've addressed most of the prose and citation issues (the main outstanding one is the chronology issue) -- if you could go through and check these (perhaps explicitly marking things in the review as Not Done), I'd appreciate it. I'm going to start looking at map-related issues. Magic♪piano 16:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, welcome back - well, apart from the "not done"s, which are not a great welcome :-)
Joking apart, it's shaping up nicely. My biggest concern at present is the illegible maps. --Philcha (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

[edit]

I'm very pleased to say that this article meets or exceeds the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images. Many thanks for the work you've put into this =- the strategic backgroud was concise but fun, and the campaign gives Brits like me to grumble about UK military incompetence :-/

If you've got 2 or more articles to GA status, please consider reviewing some other GA candidate articles. --Philcha (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I periodically do GA reviews (although I should probably do more than I actually do). By the way, you guys hardly have exclusive licence on incompetence -- I mean, you blokes only had the largest empire the planet has ever known. How is it that the French managed to lose so many wars? :-) Magic♪piano 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, their last win was in 1066 - but that was a bunch of Norsemen who got lost in the North Sea :-) --Philcha (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
 If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Carillon/GA1&oldid=327932905"