Talk:Battle of the Gebora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Gebora article.
Article policies
Featured article star Battle of the Gebora is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2008, and in the Did you know? column on November 5, 2007.

This article, or a prior version of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors . The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.

Copyedited by Malachirality (talk) – 00:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Proofread by Unimaginative Username (talk) – 07:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
comments previously appearing here have been moved to article's talk page
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Spain Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Copyedit

  • removed repetitive wiki-links, copyedit of language and punctuation, in the process of turning European date format into US format (despite how much I like the European "day month year," the US format flows a little better IMO when read in prose. Have only copyedited up to the second/third paragraph of "Background." It seems to me that more sources are needed, at least in the lead part that I read (the 1000 casualties/4000 prisoners line, for example). Also, perhaps, a clarification of what takes place in Portugal--Line of Torre Vedras, Army of Portugal, Battle of "B..."--and what takes place in Spain (the transitions b/t Spain and Portugal events seem underemphasized/abrupt, and I found myself wondering at several points. Especially since the entire lead is devoted to Spanish events, I think the obvious needs to be stated when the article begins talking about the activities of Massena's Army of Portugal). Just a few thoughts; comments welcome. --Malachirality (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this. Changing the dates around doesn't affect me, thanks to user preferences, but some people might wonder why an article on a European subject uses US style dates. Regarding the citations in the lead - I never put citations in the lead. All information in there is cited elsewhere in the body, where the facts are stated in full and cited (the 1000/4000 figure is in Consequences). Remember that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and shouldn't contain any information not in the body. The transitions between Spain and Portugal occur throughout the article, since Badajoz is on the border between the two countries. The bit about Masséna's Army of Portugal, though, is only there to explain why Soult went into Extremadura in the first place, to provide some context. Carre (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

above comments moved from LOCE request template

[edit] British/American Conventions

A few very minor issues that need consensus for the sake of consistency:

  1. One or two spaces after full stops?
  2. Which date format to use?
  3. British or American spelling conventions?

--Malachirality (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Super quick response for you!
  1. Doesn't matter. The number of spaces only shows up in edit mode, not when viewing the article. I always use 2 spaces, but it's not important.
  2. Date format is more complicated; for us registered users, we can set up our date preferences so they show up in our preferred format. However, the majority of WP users are not registered or not logged on, so they'll see what's typed in. As an article on a European subject, I suspect day/month would be preferred. I can't see anything in MOS about it though.
  3. You carry on using American spelling, since you are, after all, American yourself, and so that's easier for you doing the copyedit. I'll just come along afterwards with a mop and do the BrE conversion :)
I do need to make one change to your recent edits: when Mortier chased Ballesteros off, it was the Spaniards who didn't suffer serious losses, not the French. That's what the cited sources say, anyway. Carre (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Cool. I'll go with British conventions then. --Malachirality (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a bit of a concern on the 2nd para of the lead. While it's correct that Masséna was trying to attack Lisbon, he was completely stopped by the Lines of Torres Vedras, and had to entrench in front of those lines. Napoleon's orders to Soult weren't to aid Masséna in his attack on Lisbon and the Lines, but to help Masséna and the Army of Portugal to extricate themselves from the position. I don't think the current version of the lead properly explains that. I understand why you changed it, but it's not really historically correct any more. Previously, I said that Soult went to aid Masséna in his "plight" in front of the Lines - I think that in your attempt to make the transition between Spain and Portugal cleaner for the reader, you've managed to lose some of the facts.
Let's see if I can explain what happened: Wellington beat a small part of Masséna's army at Bussaco. Masséna then out-manoeuvred Wellington, so the Brits retreated behind the Lines. Masséna, unaware of the Lines, chased Wellington with the intention of driving the Brits off the Peninsular (instant war winner). But, he came upon the Lines, and a scorched earth policy on his side, and was instantly stopped. Masséna's army, about 60,000 strong at the start of the campaign, lost something like 25,000 men to starvation and other privations in front of the Lines. There was no concept of Soult going to help Masséna attack the Lines or Lisbon, but rather to help Masséna pull back. This is a lot of information to try and squeeze into a sentence or 2 in the lead, and a para in Background, I know! That's why I just referred to Masséna's plight in the lead, with the 1st para of Background as more detail. It's an awkward line to walk, between explaining everything and keeping focused on the subject of the article.
I'm not sure what to do about this, now. I agree with you that just saying, in the lead, that Soult went to ease the plight isn't good enough, because it doesn't explain Masséna's predicament, but what is currently written there just isn't right. I shall give it some thought, but I would appreciate it if you could also consider other ways of writing the first part of that paragraph.
Everything else you've done, thus far, has been lovely. Definitely an improvement. Carre (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
PS - hope you had a good Thanksgiving :) Carre (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical nuance correction

I think the words "extricate" and "mired" better convey the situation you are describing. An alternate, shorter, but similar version would be In a bid to extricate Marshal Andre Massena from a quagmire in front of Lisbon's defensive Lines of Torres Vedras... (quagmire is, admittedly, a charged word, but appropriate here I think). Anyways, let me know what you think, or just make the changes yourself. And I hope your Thanksgiving was also awesome! --Malachirality (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Strike that, I like better the sentence that's in the article right now. --Malachirality (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I like it too - I just changed it to "help extricate", rather than "extricate". Thanksgiving isn't celebrated on this side of the pond, unfortunately, so another month to wait before we can overdo it on the food and booze front :) Carre (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken links

There are broken links to the first and second sieges of Badajoz. I'm proofreading -- any way to fix those links, or should they be removed? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow, you've been busy! The 1st and 2nd Badajoz sieges are next on my list of articles to work on, so they're red-links deliberately; if they're removed, I'm bound to forget to come back and re-link! The campaign-box is kinda a Peninsular War thing: those are the important battles of each campaign, and hence should stay (there'll be articles for them eventually) Carre (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording re: Soult's position

"Soult was now in a difficult position: deploying two battalions to escort the prisoners taken at Olivenza back to French-held Seville left him only 5,500 infantry and a large (4,000-strong) contingent of cavalry with which to continue his campaign.". The last part, describing his cavalry as "large", seems to contradict the thrust of the first part, which is that his force is inadequate and his position difficult. If I'm understanding this correctly, one way to describe the contrast while maintaining the overall meaning of difficulty would be:

"Soult was now in a difficult position: although he had a large (4,000-strong) contingent of cavalry, deploying two battalions to escort the prisoners taken at Olivenza back to French-held Seville left him only 5,500 infantry with which to continue his campaign."

. Does this correctly describe the situation? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good way of rephrasing. The cavalry was inordinately large, even at the start when he had his full infantry strength, because the landscape in the region lent itself to cavalry operations. However, by the point you refer to, his infantry was too small to really achieve his goal of capturing Badajoz, but he resolved to do so anyway. Carre (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning and placement of "only" (11-18 Feb)

I need some information to proofread this clause:
"between 11–18 February, the French were only able to shell the southern end of the Spanish line,"
As written, it means that (because of the flooding) the French could only shell the Spanish - they couldn't attack on foot or on horse, they could only lob shells at them. If that is what was intended, then the sentence is correct as written. However, sometimes in this situation, what is intended is "the French could shell nothing but the southern end of the Spanish line, not the northern end or the city of Badajoz or anything else". If so, then the revision would be:
"between 11–18 February, the French were able to shell only the southern end of the Spanish line..." A fine distinction of meaning - let me know which. Thanks, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The former, so looks like wording is correct as it stands Carre (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If only all authors could be relied upon to place "only" so accurately! -- then copy-editors wouldn't have to ask. Unfortunately, the careless use is widespread, e. g. the actual WP Protected Template had to be corrected for this. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info needed to proofread punctuation

"Soult sent nine infantry battalions, three cavalry squadrons, and two artillery batteries under Mortier's command..." Were only the artillery under Mortier's command? If so, then the sentence is correct. If the infantry, cavalry, and artillery were all under Mortier's command, then it would read,
"Soult sent nine infantry battalions, three cavalry squadrons, and two artillery batteries, under Mortier's command,..." to indicate that "under Mortier's command" is an additional bit of information that applies to all of the preceding, rather than merely to the item to which it is attached without the comma. Thanks, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

All under Mortier's command, therefore additional comma needed.
Actually, additional two commas needed - one before and one after, to bracket the parenthetical phrase. Sorry that my use of the ellipsis in the example obscured the second comma. I added it to the article. Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the time you spent on this UU - I'll go and make the changes you've suggested now. Looks like a good piece of work all round :) Carre (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind comments. Good luck with FA, and let me know if there is anything else I can do to help, including remarks by FA reviewers. Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir? Arthur Wellesley, Viscount of Wellington

In the article he's refered as Sir Arthur Wellesley, Viscount of Wellington. Is that correct, since he was member of the peerage and would have the higher honorific "Lord" instead of "Sir"? Demophon (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at Wellington's article, it should probably be "The Viscount Wellington" rather than either "Sir Arthur" or "Lord Wellington". I'll change the couple of occurrences once this main-page mess is over and done with. Thanks for pointing it out. Carré (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Flag

About the spanish flag in the infobox, I think in that period of time the spanish flag looks like a red X with a white background.  A M M A R  22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually no: [1]. The flag seems to have come under effect in 1787 as a Naval War ensign. Flag of Spain article concurs on that too. 128.227.99.204 (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is the source needed for?

The following source is mentioned in the references-part: "Fortescue, Sir John (1917), A History of the British Army, vol. VIII, Macmillan, <http://www.archive.org/details/historyofbritish08fortuoft>. Retrieved on 13 September 2007". However, it's not used in any of the notes... Is it a general source or what? Is it really needed? Jopparn (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good spot - it was a Cut & Paste thing, from a couple of other articles I'd written around the same time. Must have just forgotten to remove it, but it's gone now. Fortescue had stuff all to say about the Gebora, since it didn't involve the British army. Carré (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)