Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Alexander Cavalié Mercer

Alexander Cavalié Mercer

I created this article but I think I have now taken it just about as far as I can. Cyclopaedic (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ost

I titled some links and marked two as dead (one has an archive). I also noticed:

• The first sentence of the lede is a bit long. It has good information, but it may be better split into two sentences. The lede itself could be expanded.

Done. Expanded the lead with brief descriptions of each reason for notability.

• Consider Promotion in the Royal Artillery was glacial, especially in peacetime. Unlike in the rest of the British Army of the time promotion was by strict seniority and there was no opportunity for purchase of commissions

Re-written.

• What was Mercer's involvement in the ill-fated Buenos Aires expedition of 1807? Is there a source for this?

Apart from the fact that he was with G Troop RHA, none of the sources gives any detail of his involvement. I have cited a source for the fact taht he went (though his son has him joining the expedition in 1808, which can't be right).

• Brunswick and Devonport should be disambiguated to their specific articles.

Done

• wikilink Napoleon, line, infantry square, battery, carbine, case-shot, columns, round shot, charge, limber, cantonments

Done for Napoleon, infantry square, carbine, case-shot, column, round shot, charge, limber, cantonments, and also for ball. Not done for line (this refers to naval warfare - line (formation) is also not the same usage) and battery (article refers to a Battery as a formal military unit, which the usage does not).

• Arriving on the field of Waterloo, Mercer's Troop briefly took a firing position on the famous knoll behind the sandpit, not realising that the entire army had halted on the ridge behind them, and exchanged fire with arriving French batteries. Consider splitting into two sentences. Also, does the famous knoll have a name and what is the significance of Mercer not knowing that the entire army halted behind him?

Re-written the sentence. The significance is only that it's mildly amusing, acting as rearguard to cover the retreat of an army that has halted for battle 100 yds behind, and it's interesting to anyone familar with the battle as it occurs on famous features of the following day's battlefield.

• Who are the Allied?

Allied means Wellington's multinational army, but I have replaced it with "Wellington's" throughout, except when referring to the allied occupation of Paris, where it refers to the forces of the Seventh Coalition, which has no page of its own to link to. I think it is reasonable to assume a little knowledge about the Waterloo Campaign.

• It deployed immediately behind the ridge road, which was there raised on a low bank, which provided... is a bit awkward.

Re-written.

• Are Mercer's troops they in so they opened fire with case-shot at close range,?

Yes; changed to "the troop".

• What is case-shot over ball?

Double-loading - a common technique for guns expecting close-range action, either on land or at sea; two rounds are loaded one over the other. Range is shortened but effect is increased. I have changed it to "double-loading" and Wikilinked ball but I think any further explanition would be a distraction.

• Consider Towards the end of the action, a battery established itself on the ridge to Mercer's left and delivered effective fire into Mercer's flank. The attack caused devastating casualties amongst the limber-horses, until this battery was itself driven off by flanking fire from a newly-arrived Belgian battery.

Slightly re-worded, but not sure what the concern is.

—Ost (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Patton123

I think this article would be better structured like this:

• Early life
• Career

• G troop
• Waterloo campaign
• After Waterloo

Is there a real benefit to that? The article doesn't have so many sections that they need to be hierarchical. Participation in the Waterloo Campaign is the notable event of his life and needs full emphasis - everything before and after is of lesser interest.Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw the section headings do no need to be capitalised all the way through.--Patton^t/c 11:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAPS#Military terms I think the capitalisation (of G Troop and Waterloo Campaign) is correct. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87

• The first thing that catches my eye is that a lot of thetext is uncited. I realize you've heard this a lot, and that I believe you've put the cite at the end of the section, but the Waterloo section does look as it's almost entirely unreferenced. I'm not entirely sure what to propose, but I often cite through a section anyway - I think it helps a reader if they want to look up a certain fact, even if it is in the same source. Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Have you looked through the ODNB for anything on Mercer? I'll have a look now, and see what I can find.

Nothing on ODNB, I'm afraid :( Skinny87 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• But good work so far! I'll make more comments when I can! Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Levi

• Inline citations generally aren't required in the lead.

Practice seems to vary, but I don't think they're prohibited or discouraged.

• I see the lead has already been expanded, but it's still kind of small. It has two single-sentence paragraphs, for instance.

What's wrong with single-sentence paragraphs? Style seems to vary between UK and USA, but short paragraphs are modern style.

• "Mercer was a painter of some merit..." - The reader can decide this after inspecting his art. Might be more neutral to simply say "Mercer was also a painter".

The merit of his paintings is demonstrated by the Canadian National Gallery buying them; "was also a painter" gives no clue taht he was any good (or was not a hous-painter!).

• Inline citations should generally follow punctuation marks to avoid cluttering up sentences.

They generally do, except where a cite relates only to part of a sentence.

• The Waterloo Campaign section could do with some condensing. There are several small paragraphs, including a single-sentence paragraph.

Again, I think that's just good style. One idea, one paragraph.

• The second paragraph in After Waterloo reads kind of like a list. It could do with some expansion.

I'm inclined to agree - to my mind the problem is the full date for each prommotion, which I don't think is necessary, but another editor strongly disagreed.

• The first instance of "Journal" after the lead should include the book's full name.

Done

• Is Mercer's book notable enough to justify its own article? If so, it should be wikilinked, even if it's red.

Done

Overall looks pretty good. I'm not a MILHIST editor, but I think it's heading towards B-class, especially if the earlier suggestions in this peer review are all implemented. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight

The first thing that pops up as something to improve on is the Waterloo campaign section. Excluding the last three paragraphs, you have only one inline citation for the first eight paragraphs, so citations for that section are needed. If possible, his artwork could be expanded upon, perhaps with its own section, because although it's mentioned briefly in the lede, it is only described in a short paragraph in the last section. Good job on this article, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Magicpiano

Some technical things, assuming you eventually want to put this article through GA, and a few prose items.

• More inline citations
• Learn to love WP:ENDASH for year and page ranges
• Others have commented on the lead brevity; the last two one-sentence paragraphs can be combined, if they're not going to be expanded. (I'll also disagree with Levi on the inclusion of "of merit"; I think it's fine, not particularly WP:PEACOCK, and sufficiently justified by the museum acquisitions.)
• "Towards the end of the action a battery established itself" - images of a gun carriage maneuvering itself into position, completely unaided... (should say something like "... the French established a battery")
• Agree with Levi that the post-Waterloo period (even if it is of less interest to the casual reader) should be a little more elaborate than it is. You might want to consider reducing the number of promotions listed, and perhaps focus a bit more on the Aroostook War (a longer summary, possible description of his unit's role). You should also emphasize that the post-Waterloo postings were basically peacetime (assuming they were): "After the campaign he was put on half-pay, and then began a series of peacetime postings in 1821" or some such.

-- Magic♪piano 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)