Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Borodino/archive1

Battle of Borodino

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… In it's time frame, the Battle of Borodino and the French Invasion of Russia probably rank up there with the Battle of Waterloo in importance. Despite more than a few requests, I've had very little interest in getting help with the article and I will confess that it is one of the harder battle histories to work on since so much disinformation and distorted history has been wrapped around this particular battle. I've been working pretty hard to bring this article up from the two fat paragraphs that it once was (two editors were fighting so hard it scared everyone including me off the page) and I have brought it up to class B. I'd like to see where I am at and where I need to work on this more to bring it up to GA or A.Tirronan (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tirronan (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting account of a famous battle. I'm quite familiar with Tolstoy's account of it, but otherwise I have no outside information. I'm able to comment on matters of prose and style, and I have reservations about the heavy reliance on just two sources, Riehn and Mikaberidze. I haven't read them, but I would be careful about being swayed overmuch by any particular author or extremely small set of authors. More research and less deference to those two would probably improve the article.

Heads and subheads

• Wikipedia generally uses telegraphic heads. Instead of "The Battle of Shevardino Redoubt", "Battle of Shevardino Redoubt" would be preferred. Likewise "Position" instead of "The position".

Lead

• When the article is more-or-less complete, I'd suggest re-writing the lead to be a true summary. It's now a kind of introduction but does not mention Shevardino Redoubt, Bagration's flèches, Raevsky redoubt, or the historiography, for example. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of the central ideas of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has details.

• In some places in the lead, "Russian Army" appears with "Army" capped, while it other places the phrase appears as "Russian army". Probably "Russian Army" is better, but you should be consistent in any case.

• "Russian losses, while heavier, could be replaced due to Russia's large population, since Napoleon's campaign took place on Russian soil." - Maybe just delete "since Napoleon's campaign took place on Russian soil" since this is already clear from context?

• "instead of the forced pursuit that had marked other campaigns that he had conducted in the past" - Tighten to "instead of the forced pursuit that had marked his past campaigns"?

• "The entirety of the Guard" - Should "Guard" be linked to Imperial Guard (Napoleon I)?

• "By withdrawing, the Russian army preserved its combat strength, eventually allowing them to force Napoleon out of the country." - "Army" is singular. In this sentence, you correctly talk about "its" strength, but "them" should be "it" in the next phrase; i.e., "eventually allowing it to force".

Napoleon's invasion of Russia

• The first paragraph of this section lacks a source. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph, as well as sources for any sets of statistics, direct quotes, or extraordinary or controversial claims. Ditto for unsourced paragraphs later in the article.

• "Emperor Alexander I proclaimed a Patriotic War in response." - Why is Patriotic War in italics?

• "as it was 925 km" - The primary units are usually spelled out; i.e., 925 kilometers.

• "The central French force, under Napoleon's direct command, had crossed the Niemen with 286,000 men; however, by the time of the battle, it numbered 161,475 (most had died of starvation and disease)." - I'm sure you mean "most of those who died" rather than "most of the army" or "most of the 161,475". Better re-cast to make this utterly clear.

• "Kutuzov established his defensive line in an eminently defensible area near the village of Borodino, the best defensive position until the Russians reached Moscow." - Three reps of "defensive" is too many for one sentence. Suggestion: "Kutuzov established his line near the village of Borodino, the best remaining defensive position west of Moscow."

The Battle of Shevardino Redoubt

• "Historian Buturlin" - It's customary to give the full name on first use and then "Buturlin" by itself is fine on subsequent uses. Ditto for many other names in the article.

• "Historian Buturlin reports that it was used as a observation point to determine the course of advance by the French forces." - Doesn't this need a citation to a work by Buturlin? If the source for this claim is Mikaberidze, then the sentence should say something like "According to historian Alexander Mikaberidze, (first name) Buturlin reports... ". Ditto for "Witner & Ratch" or any other sources, such as Yermolov, being cited indirectly; to say that Jones said something is not the same as saying that Smith said that Jones said something. It's much better to quote Jones directly.

• "thus the Battle of Shevardion" - Typo.

• "supported by Compan's Division" - Who is Compan? Should this be "Compans' "? First name? Title?

• The final paragraph of this section needs a source or sources.

Opposing forces

• "Stung by the defeats of Austerlitz, Eylau, and Friedland, reforms had been enacted by the Russians... " - Should the three battles be wikilinked? Also, the reforms were not stung. Suggestion: "Stung by the defeats of Austerlitz, Eylau, and Friedland, the Russians had enacted reforms... ".

• "Starting in 1802 the Russian Regiment consisted of three Battalions with each Battalion having four Companies." - Lowercase generic nouns; i.e., "Starting in 1802, a Russian regiment consisted of three battalions, each made up of four companies."

Estimates by historians"

• Perhaps "Troop-strength estimates" would be a better head.

• "Butrulin"- Misspelling?

• First names for historians?

• Perhaps citation 33 should be placed right after the subhead to make it instantly clear that the numbers all come from Mikaberidze.

Battle of Borodino

• The Manual of Style advises against repeating the main words of the article title in the heads and subheads. This head repeats the article title exactly. Better would be "Central conflict" or something else that avoids repeating the title.

• The Manual of Style advises against fancy quotes. Use blockquotes for quotations of four lines or more. MOS:QUOTE has details.

• The first paragraph of this section has a source, but it appears at the end of the first sentence. What is the source for the rest of the material in the paragraph? For example, who says there were 19 12-pounder cannons?

• "Toll and others would make attempts to cover up their mistakes in this deployment and later attempts by historians would compound the issue." - Who is Toll? I know you don't mean that the historians were in the fight, but the sentence seems to suggest that on a first reading. Maybe something like "Later, some historians would make excuses for the Russian errors" or whatever is the case.

• "Indeed again Clausewitz complained about Toll's depositions being so narrow and deep that needless losses were incurred from artillery fire" - Mixing the time of the battle and the time of the criticism in the same paragraph is tricky. Readers will not necessarily know that Clausewitz was writing about the battle after the fact rather than participating in it unless you make this quite clear in the text. One way to handle this might be to relegate the historian's arguments to notes at the end of the article or to move them to the "Historiography" section.

Utiza

• "The 3rd area of operations was around the village of Utiza. Poniatowski and the Polish contingent contested for the village of Utiza effecting its capture with his 1st attempt." - Generally, numbers from one to nine are spelled out; i.e., "third" and "first".

End of the battle

• "Those compact squares made wonderful artillery targets and the heroism of the Russian Guard was all too evident that day." - In some places, the text of the article seems to parallel its source too closely. I say this without being able to see the source text, but "wonderful artillery targets" and "heroism of the Russian Guard was all too evident" are POV expressions that historians or other analysts might use but that an encyclopedia editor should avoid. In fact, this whole subsection, which passes judgment on both the French and Russian generals, depends on only two sources. Those judgments might be skewed or controversial. For example, does everyone agree with Riehn that "Only the misplacement of Russian forces by Kutuzov over both Bagration's and Barclay's protest prevented the ruin of the French army that day"?

Progression of the historiography

• "As with all things in this battle, the end of the battle changed with both time and the succession of historians that came with the political scenario surrounding them." - "As with all things in this battle" seems hyperbolic and improbable.

• "It should be noted that Kutuzov's abilities on the battlefield... ". - Who says it should be noted? That's the language of an academic paper but not an encyclopedia article. It would be better to make the claim directly and to supply the source of the claim.

Legacy

• The battle was famously described by Count Leo Tolstoy in his novel War and Peace as "a continuous slaughter which could be of no avail either to the French or the Russians". - This direct quote needs an in-line citation to the source, including edition and page number.

• The second paragraph needs a source or sources.

Historiography

• This whole subsection relies solely on one source, and that alone makes it suspect. A statement such as "Few events have suffered a more tortured history than that of the Battle of Borodino" sound more like poetic and academic hyperbole than indisputable fact. An improved section on the historiography would include the views of others as well as Mikaberidze.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to take a moment and thank you for the help. This hasn't been an easy article to write, nor as you have noted, are my sources all that wide, nor all that available. To make matters worse, this battle actual facts have been treated with cavalier hand more often than not. I'll see if I can get another book but its been a rare find at best to get a book on the battle itself. While my sources may not expand in the near future, the rest of this can be attended to.Tirronan (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)